"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
> > Have we had an opportunity to have the Walnut Creek (or other) legal staff
> > review the actual rules for gotchas?
>
> No, this is something I hope to sit down with our corporate counsel
> over very shortly. It's an annoying drive to San Jose from here, but
> I
"Christopher R. Bowman" wrote:
>
> The last paragraph would be a step in the right direction but still seems
> silly. What are they going to do with it? I would really like to see people
> educate them on the stupidity of sending code to Washington. I think it would
> be neat if there was one
> Have we had an opportunity to have the Walnut Creek (or other) legal staff
> review the actual rules for gotchas?
No, this is something I hope to sit down with our corporate counsel
over very shortly. It's an annoying drive to San Jose from here, but
I'm prepared to make that sacrifice. :)
-
Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Basically, does this mean something like
> tar cf - /usr/src/crypto | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ? :-)
No. Mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", Hilary is handling the database.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> The last two paragraphs are the most relevant to us.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-encryption.html
>
Have we had an opportunity to have the Walnut Creek (or other) legal staff
review the actual rules for gotchas?
--
"Whe
At 03:01 AM 1/13/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > The last two paragraphs are the most relevant to us.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-encryption.html
>
>Hmm. These paragraphs don't sound that nice:
>
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> But then, at the end:
>
>People posting ``open source'' programs would be required
>to send the code, or a Web site address where the code was
>displayed, to the government.
>
> Basically, does this mean something like
> tar cf - /usr/src/
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 03:01:01AM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>People posting ``open source'' programs would be required
>to send the code, or a Web site address where the code was
>displayed, to the government.
>
> Basically, does this mean something like
> tar cf - /usr/src/crypto
On 13-Jan-00 Matthew Dillon wrote:
> The last two paragraphs are the most relevant to us.
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-encryption.html
So does this mean we OpenSSH in the base system some time soon? :)
(Post RSA patent expiry?)
---
Daniel O'Connor software and ne
Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> The last two paragraphs are the most relevant to us.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-encryption.html
Hmm. These paragraphs don't sound that nice:
[...] complex restrictions still affect p
10 matches
Mail list logo
