Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-12 Thread Matthew Dillon
The last two paragraphs are the most relevant to us. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-tech-encryption.html -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-12 Thread Oliver Fromme
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

RE: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-12 Thread Daniel O'Connor
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

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-12 Thread Joe Abley
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

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-12 Thread Kris Kennaway
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/

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-12 Thread Christopher R. Bowman
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: >

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-13 Thread 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

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-13 Thread Wes Peters
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

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-13 Thread Jordan K. Hubbard
> 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. :) -

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-13 Thread Wes Peters
"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

Re: Encryption rules changes coming up - win for open source

2000-01-13 Thread Wes Peters
"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