Re: A followup on github discussion
I wrote:
> Export regulations do not apply to Open Source software (Debian is an
> example).
nik writes:
> Source?
Look in the Debian archive. Strong encryption, on servers in the USA
(some operated by institutions such as MIT), no licenses, nobody in
jail.
I was a Debian developer back when the US government asserted that their
export regulations applied to Free Software: We kept strong encryption
in an archive that was stored only on servers outside the USA. It
eventually became clear to the regulators that if they persisted they
were going to lose a court case on First Amendment grounds. They
changed their rules to avoid having a precedent set which might have
undermined their whole program.
For a while they had a bizarre requirement that a copy of the source of
anything containing strong encryption be emailed to them when it went
into the archive (but not in advance: there was no waiting period).
This required the archive maintainers to review each new package for
possible encryption, but that wasn't too hard and they tended to err on
the side of caution. Eventually they were asked to stop sending the
stuff.
The reasoning (if you can call it that) is that they cannot restrict
publication but they contended that source code was not speech. It
became obvious that someone was going to eventually make them take it to
court, where they would lose.
It now seems to be established that putting Open Source software up on
a public server is protected speech. Exporting copies of closed source
proprietary software, however, is not. This means that Microsoft has to
avoid knowingly exporting restricted material to certain countries.
--
John Hasler
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Reply to: