Thomas --
...and then Thomas Ribbrock said...
% On Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 03:00:04PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
%
% > Nope. Even the hooks for PGP/strong crypto are illegal to export.
%
% Could you please elaborate on that? I was wondering about that for a long
% time now and I'd be grateful to get to know what exactly led to the split
Basically, the US Feds have two lists (one Dept of Commerce, one Dept
of State) detailing things that cannot be exported and to whom (we can,
for instance, send anything to Canada -- not only do we trust them to
not give stuff away to folks that we think are bad guys, but I guess
we also figure they won't use it against us ;-) These make up what are
called ITAR (International Traffic and Arms Regulations) items.
On these lists you find such things as rifles, tanks, computers, and even
horses (yes, it's true). You also find computer software and source code.
Basically, the US doesn't want to give anyone any sort of advantage that
could be used against it; that includes raw military hardware and some
perhaps-sensible items as well as nuclear secrets (whatever they may be)
and cryptography and satellite control (he says, with much experience
from his days at Motorola's IRIDIUM project) and lots of other stuff
which We Of The Enlightment generally think is silly.
So it's pretty easy to talk about missle exportation; if someone finds
you with one in your garage, then you're in for some questions. What
about software, though? After all, copies of that can be made pretty
easily. What, even more, about downloaded copies of software, which
don't require or even furnish original disks and packaging in a nice,
recognizable form?
What, at the drastic end, about simply an idea that you may have
sketched out that someone else saw? If you're in an ITAR-controlled
environment, you have to be sure to beware what you leave up where and
in front of whom, or you may "export" an idea to someone who shouldn't
have it (he says again, with the same experience).
% between "mutt-us" and "mutt-i". Any pointers to aplicable legislation,
So, to wind this dissertation back down to a reasonable level, AFAIUI
the original mutt folks wanted to have support for PGP, but didn't
want to endanger mutt's future; ME, at Harvey Mudd U, was the central
owner of the mutt code, and TLR, "out there", became the owner of the
PGP-related code and the "international" PGP-capable version that
matched each "domestic" version safe for export anywhere. Since all
of the PGP stuff was done by someone not related to the US, in any of
its definitions, all was well and good.
These days, ME isn't managing the code and I haven't seen a non-i
version of mutt in a long time, so the distinction is somewhat moot.
Perhaps it could be dropped for the 1.0 release and mutt officially
moved "offshore".
% mabye?
I don't have the pointers, but could probably dig them up if you
needed them.
%
% Thanks,
%
% Thomas
...and then Brendan Cully said...
% On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 15:00, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
% > On Wed, Aug 25, 1999 at 08:40:42AM -0400, Fairlight wrote:
% >
% > > There is no actual crypto shipped in mutt, so the only "problem" is RH
% > > being finicky about "i" versions on their site, from what I can see. :/
% >
% > Nope. Even the hooks for PGP/strong crypto are illegal to export.
%
% That's pretty vague terminology. Is piping a message through pgp on your
% system with '|' illegal? What if you build the hooks for use with a weak
No, because you're separately joining two programs, I'd say. And so,
we all see with exasperation, the case is the same -- but these are
not mutt-users making up the laws about this, now, are they? :-)/2
% version of PGP, but someone substitutes in a strong one?
That might work, but then again it might not. See your statement
below for "clarification" :-)
%
% "Hooks" could even mean any source at all, instead of just binaries.
Sure. Or any algorithm translated into code -- or sketched out on a
napkin, for that matter.
%
% I don't think it's your terminology, but it is confusing. And that's part
% of the point - it's better to make vague and scary laws than concrete ones
% which can't be upheld in court. Let the people handicap themselves.
Now *that* is hitting the nail on the head.
%
% --
% Brendan Cully <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | OLD SKOOL ROOLZ
:-D
--
David Thorburn-Gundlach * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Helping out at Pfizer
http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
"Why2k? Well, I didn't think at the time that I could charge any more!"
Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*
PGP signature
