3 ms·
I believe the RSA code was, initially at least, under a "sealed" patent? The PGP-based drama of printing books of the source code to get copyright protections,
by jcr 16y ago
I believe the RSA code was, initially at least, under a "sealed" patent?
The PGP-based drama of printing books of the source code to get copyright protections, and then exporting the books rather than exporting the machine readable code, was just ridiculous. The "International Version" of PGP (www.pgpi.org) was intended to deal with both the ITAR export restrictions and also the RSA patents. Fun times, but a real PITA.
Just for clarity, you're referring to 56-bit versus 128-bit SSL debacle of the mid 90's.
Getting back to the real problem... how the heck is an open source developer in the US to know if the crypto code he's written can be legally exported?
Though the announcement seems friendly, it is (intentionally?) not clear. There is no mention of the ITAR restrictions being lifted. Also, there's always the issue of unknowing reinvention of something classified.
Other than stating the status quo of crypto code being currently exported, the announcement does not really offer any legal protection for exporting crypto code.
Am I just reading the announcement wrong?
Am I wrong in expecting the ITAR restriction being removed?
- ghshephard 16y agoRe: "how the heck is an open source developer in the US to know if the crypto code he's written can be legally exported?" tptacek: "My understanding of this announcement is that it simply makes official what was already near-universal in practice: it's safe to export any non-classified crypto code. "
- tptacek 16y ago'jcr is from OpenBSD, a project that did go way, way out of its way to stay away from US export regulations. I can understand why they'd be picky about this. I'm just saying, if you're not from OpenBSD, this is largely a solved problem.