The message below from Saint skullY the Dazed
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was forwarded by one of
the list maintainers.
>Well, this in no way constitutes legal advice, I and may very well be
>wrong, so please take the normal grain of salt with this. :=) IAANL, etc.
>
>My understanding is that with the new restrictions on crypto the US
>government outlined, it is now ok to distribute strong cryptography
>to any entity outside the US, so long as it doesn't go to any of the
>big bad evil governments the US doesn't like (eg, cuba and iraq) and
>either the source is avalible, or the product has been okayed be the
>government (eg, netscape). So, given both conditions, I'd say you're
>safe distributing binaries of ssl-enabled lynx provided you provide
>the source code (Which I'm assuming you are).
>
>At least, I hope my interpretation is correct, as I'm going to start
>distributing binary packages of OpenSSL/SSH with a Linux Distro I'm
>doing.....
>
>On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 07:27:11AM -0800, Doug Kaufman wrote:
> > No one has commented on my question from 29 October 2000 in regard to
> > restrictions on distribution of SSL-enabled lynx. Now that the RSA
> > patent has expired and US export regulations have eased, does anyone
> > see problems with licensing conflicts, etc. if I were to distribute
> > a binary of SSL-enabled lynx for DOS (compiled without idea or rc5,
> > using openssl)?
> > Doug
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
