Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions
Richard Salz wrote: I would expect hardware designs to be treated more like hardware than software. That's an interesting observation, raising the issue of what is "speech" vs hardware. When I looked into this issue, I found the "Common Criteria" certification methodology as evidence that "speech" covers everything from the most high level abstract design description to the most concrete representation of the hardware that you would look at, e.g. for security certification assurance that electronic gates are properly positioned by the Computer-Aided-Design tools. Hence, any information is "speech", and if it's in the public domain, I would expect an export control exception would apply. Only the actual silicon, and non human-readable dies for the silicon, would be hardware. Otherwise, I see no legal base to locate a cut-off point between "speech" and hardware in the process of design refinements leading to the actual processor. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc. 9130 Place de Montgolfier Montreal, Qc Canada H2M 2A1 Tel.: (514)385-5691 Fax: (514)385-5900 web site: http://www.connotech.com e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions
If only to make sure that there's no confusion about where I stand: I agree with you completely John. I am not surprised that the feds or Sun see it otherwise. /r$ -- STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/ - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions
> I would expect hardware designs to be treated more like hardware than > software. A hardware "design" is not hardware. Only a naive parsing of the words would treat it so. A software design is not treated like software; you are free to write about how ATM machine crypto is designed, even if you can't export ATM machine crypto software without a license (because it's proprietary and not mass-market). A hardware design is a lot like software. It's human written and human readable, it's trivial to reproduce, it's compiled automatically into something that can execute, and if you write it into hardware, then it does something. The court case that EFF won against the export controls was won on those grounds: the government can't suppress the publication of human-written and human-readable text, on the grounds that somebody somewhere might put it into a machine that does things the government doesn't like. Sun may be chicken on the point, and the government did a sneaky trick to technically avoid having a Ninth Circuit precedent set on the topic, but a similar precedent was set by Peter Junger's case in another circuit. I think Sun would be well within its rights to ship VHDL or Verilog source code that implements crypto under an open source license. And I'd be happy to point them at good lawyers who'd be happy to be paid to render a more definitive opinion. John Gilmore - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why doesn't Sun release the crypto module of the OpenSPARC? Crypto export restrictions
I would expect hardware designs to be treated more like hardware than software. /r$ -- STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer WebSphere DataPower SOA Appliances http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/ - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
