... For that matter, what is "export"? Posting something to Usenet?
Putting it up on a Web page or FTP server? The act of downloading it?
Egad, Steve, a highest and best use for spam. I'll buy
those 300,000 e-mail addresses and send them all a copy
of the GPG source, each with
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For that matter, what is "export"? Posting something to Usenet?
Putting it up on a Web page or FTP server? The act of downloading it?
As far as I know, they haven't changed the definition of "export". Which
means this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
At 07:28 AM 23-11-99 -0800, David Honig wrote:
I am not privy to any inside knowledge of NIST's
motivations, but I can see some reasons for these decisions:
1. Why does AES require 128 bit blocks? Any other reason
than to make ECB codebook attacks tougher?
Where can I get the last informations about present SSL security status?
I seek more detailed information than contented in the following report:
http://webdevelopersjournal.com/articles/is_ssl_dead.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks like they are reinventing the GPL, except to infect
other sources.
I think they want to make sure that if some non-US package
(openssl being the example most obvious to me) picks it up
that it doesn't suddenly become "free." So it's not the GPL,
really, but more like the old BSD license.
"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
I was about to make a snide comment that they're just endorsing open source
software -- but is there any definition of "other restriction"? Does the GPL
count? Are they trying to ban any publication of anything that isn't flat-out
public domain? And if
According to William Allen Simpson:
...
What I meant is, I'd like to contribute code to FreeSWAN, or OpenSSL,
or whatever, but the inclusion of a single line of my code will make
the entire thing subject to EAR regulation.
I wonder how broad is or will be "code" concept.
An interesting
