Re: ITP seahorse
On 2000-05-24 at 20:17 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Mike Bilow writes:
> > I think there is a need to make clear and evident that the "full" version
> > is not US-exportable.
>
> Why not label one "Contains crypto" and the other "Does not contain crypto"
> and let the vendors make their own decisions about what is exportable? It
> seems to me that what the vendors need from Debian is information, not
> legal advice.
>
> I think that people reading "not US-exportable" are likely to assume that
> Debian's attorneys have determined that to be true. It is not at all clear
> to me that the crypto in question is not in fact exportable.
I suppose you have a valid point here. The "exportable" nomenclature
seems to follow policy based upon the definition of the "non-US" tree.
None of the solutions so far proposed seem ideal, but "includes crypto"
would certainly be adequate warning not to export from the US.
You are also right in saying that the crypto in the Debian non-US tree
might well fall within the new rules and be legally exportable to most of
the world, but there is still a prohibited list (Libya, Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
North Korea, etc.) of countries to which export of even widely available
crypto is prohibited from the US, so posting on the Internet is not
allowed without at least some kind of gate checking.
-- Mike
Reply to: