I've currently seen the following statement on http://www.gnu.org/home.html:
``New information regarding the Wassenaar agreement indicates that the
information we posted here on the 11th of December was a false alarm. An
attentive reader pointed out to us that The Wassenaar agreement
+- On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 12:53:04 +0100, "Ralf S. Engelschall" writes:
|
| I've currently seen the following statement on http://www.gnu.org/home.html:
|
| ``New information regarding the Wassenaar agreement indicates that the
| information we posted here on the 11th of December was a false
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998, Michael Salmon wrote:
[...]
The Wassenaar agreement has it's own definition of PD that is more in
line with the common view than the legal view.
Oh, interesting. And where is this definition written down? Any URLs at hand?
I ask because I want to add information to the
You might want to look at
http://www.fitug.de/news/wa/index.html
which is a html conversion of the documents at www.wassenaar.org
"Ralf S. Engelschall" wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998, Michael Salmon wrote:
[...]
The Wassenaar agreement has it's own definition of PD that is more in
line
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998, Michael Salmon wrote:
[...]
The Wassenaar agreement has it's own definition of PD that is more in
line with the common view than the legal view.
Oh, interesting. And where is this definition written down? Any URLs at hand?
I ask
look at the GnuPG home page:
http://www.d.shuttle.de/isil/gnupg/gsn.html
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998, Michael Salmon wrote:
[...]
The Wassenaar agreement has it's own definition of PD that is more in
line with the common view than the legal view.
Oh, interesting.
On Fri, Dec 18, 1998, Magnus Stenman wrote:
[...various hints...]
Thanks for the various hints on the Wassenaar state.
I'll now include the following entry in the mod_ssl FAQ:
| First, let us explain what iWassenaar/i and it's iArrangement on
| Export Controls for Conventional Arms and
