Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 09, 1998 at 08:04:00PM +0100, Ulf Möller wrote:
> >
> > 2.) The government has acknowledged that public domain software
> > remains unrestricted. This also applies to copyrighted software such
> > as PGP which "has been made available without restrictions upon its
> > further dissemination".
>
> I applied for an examination of the Open Source definition to the
> department for foreign affairs in Norway. The response (no surprise)
> was that Open Source is compliant with what the Wassenaar-agreement
> calls "public domain" software.
I posed a question in this direction in sci.crypt in the thread
'(fwd) Strike to protest Wassenaar!' to which Doug Stell gave a
follow-up on 11 Dec 14:19:24 which is attached below.
M. K. Shen
____________________________________________________
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:50:12 +0100, Mok-Kong Shen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2. "In the public domain".
>
>This is indeed very interesting. If someone implements a strong
>crypto algorithm with 128 key bits and places it on an ftp-server
>for free download, then that is by definition in the 'public domain'
>and hence according to the above not subject to export regulations.
>Could someone explain this paradox?
a. "Public domain" is defined in the document you refer to, by the
indentations under Item 1.
b1. 128-bit software is never exempt.
b2. 64-bit software is exempt if you meet ALL of the other criteria.
b3. The limit of exemption is 56 bits, if you do not meet all of the
other criteria.
See my other response where this is explained from Catgory 5 - Part 2.
Unfortunately, one key statement is missing from the General Software
Note and it contains the magic word "ALL."
doug
