Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: Twp on New Encryption Regulations


From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 05:56:04 -0500



X-Sender: alan () mail cdtmail org
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:10:34 -0500
To: farber () cis upenn edu
From: Alan Davidson <abd () cdt org>
Subject: Re: IP: New Encryption Regulations

Hi, Dave -- I'm getting a lot of feedback on my earlier note, and would be 
grateful if you might mention in any future posting on the subject that we 
do believe this is a big step forward for privacy. Our #1 privacy 
yardstick for assessing the crypto regs is whether consumers all over the 
world can get good crypto built into the products and systems they use 
everyday. Using that metric, the new regs will make it a lot easier to 
export strong crypto in consumer products and clearly advance the ball for 
privacy. They don't resolve every problem, but they are a big shift away 
from prior policies embracing bit length limits and key escrow. Thanks,

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 20:06:48 -0700
To: farber () cis upenn edu, ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
Subject: Re: IP: New Encryption Regulations
Cc: Alan Davidson <abd () cdt org>


At 07:41 PM 1/12/2000 , Alan Davidson wrote:
* Source code that is "not subject to an express agreement for the payment 
of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any 
product developed with the source code" is freely exportable to all but the 
T-7 terrorist countries.

Interesting. The way I read this, encryption source code licensed under a 
license such as the "MIT X license," "BSD license," or "Artistic License" 
can be exported, because no license fee or royalty is required when one 
developes commercial software based on such code. But code licensed under 
the GNU General Public License (GPL) would not be exportable, because the 
license restricts the development of a commercial product based on the code.
Hopefully, this will encourage open source authors to eschew the GPL and 
its restrictions in favor of the other, more free licenses, which do not 
prevent commercial reuse of open source.
--Brett Glass


Current thread: