Unless, of course, this quiet announcement (in the Bernstein court
papers filed by the US Govt) that the source code issue is currently being
reviewed within the Executive Branch -- despite White House assurances to
the contrary to leading Congressional figures -- was a purposely misleading
representation, intended only to further stall and delay the Berstein
hearing before the full appelate court.
Of course, it is probably just because I'm a cynical Child of the
SiXties that I view the DoJ posture with a skeptical and jaundiced eye. <sigh>
Suerte,
_Vin
At 03:13 PM 10/19/99 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 07:41:34PM -0700, I wrote:
>> At 04:49 AM 9/29/99 , Donald Ramsbottom wrote:
>> >What really intrigues me is the end of your post relating to the
>> >distinction between object code and source code. So if I understand you
>> >correctly, you will still require the old style regime and restrictions on
>> >source code. If so does that not mean that there is effectively no
>> >liberalisation?
>>
>> [...]
>> Specifically of interest are general question #18, which indicates that
>> technical assistance, APIs, and source code will continue to be controlled
>> under the old regime; technical question #7, illustrating a new detailed
>> approach to API regulation; and technical question #8, reiterating that
>> only object code will be subject to the new policies.
>
>It appears that this may no longer be correct. John Young has made
>available on his website a document
><http://cryptome.org/bernstein-mot.htm> filed by the US Government with
>respect to the en banc rehearing of the Ninth Circuit's decision in the
>_Bernstein_ case. In short, the US Government is asking the court to
>postpone oral argument in the case until the US Government has revealed
>the new regulations, promised for release on December 15 1999.
>
>As the filing states -
>
>"It is possible that the revised regulations will not materially change
>the treatment of source code. But it is also possible that the revised
>regulations will alter the treatment of source code in ways that could
>have a bearing on the constitutional issues before this Court.[1]"
>
>where footnote 1 says that the BXA's question and answer document "does
>not reflect the review that is taking place."
>
>Thus, reliance on that document may no longer be appropriate. BXA's
>website does not reflect that change in status.
>
>--
>Greg Broiles
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
