On 5/19/07, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can you quote a specific US law that says so?
>
> There is no need. US Law defers the specific details to regulatory
> agencies. The ruling in Junger v. Daley conferred protected speech
> status upon source code. That means no restrictions for open source
> code in terms of exportation requirements. This policy is simply
> reflecting a constitutional requirement. No US law is needed.
Yeah, right. Those of us looking from the outside do not have such
simplistic views of the US, sorry.
Your unreasoned paranoia/ignorance is hardly a useful excuse. A
federal appellate court ruling establishing protected speech status of
open source code is pretty damn strong. Stronger than a law passed by
Congress at any rate. Especially when compared to other nations, like
Canada, that have the power to ban speech they deem "hateful". The US'
most strongly protected right is that of free speech, and that is the
Constitutional protection that has been extended to keep the
government's hands off of open source crypto code.
It's certainly at least as strong as any other government's current
lack of interest in regulating crypto exports. Which you seem more
than happy to rely upon.
But our viewpoint is not purely about OpenBSD as open source. We
make our code available for people to use in a commercial setting,
so we must meet a higher standard.
There is no difference. Since the source code originates from the US
as open source, it is untainted once exported. Therefore, once is has
been exported, there is no legal distinction between it and code
originating in Canada or Sweden.
As the only completely operating system focused on staying outside the
realm of US crypto export POLICY, we don't intend to change our
approach.
And nothing need be changed. Once the public code has been exported
from the US, it is not subject to US jurisdiction or policy any more
than code written elsewhere.
--
Mark Reitblatt
