Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-20,: Re: 2.3.x wish list?

# Re: 2.3.x wish list?

Michael B. Trausch (mtrausch@wcnet.org)
Fri, 14 May 1999 22:36:46 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [2.2.8] undefined reference to `disable_irq_nosync' (+ fix)"
- Previous message: Kroah-Hartman, Greg/EXEUG3: "RE: 2.3.x wish list?"

On Thu, 13 May 1999, G. Sumner Hayes wrote:

> mark@hoist.nlcomm.com wrote:
>
> > 40-bit encryption isn't. Why not just put 40 bit as the default
> > in the kernel, but require patching to get any higher.
>
> Any encryption is illegal for export from the US without a license.
> Licenses are routinely granted for export of binaries that only use
> 40-bit crypto, but AFAIK they aren't granted for source code at all
> (barring special circumstances), even with 40-bit crypto.
>
> The 9th Circuit court's ruling may eventually make it legal to export
> source code with crypto in it, but that ruling doesn't apply to
> binaries as far as I can tell. Besides, there's still a Supreme Court

It affects only those binaries that have source code -- the ruling is
based on source code as a language (even though it's not a spoken language
--- the judge rules it under freedom of speech). From what I read, the
9th Circuit court ruling is the law until the US Supreme Court overturns
it -- period. And I have a feeling that it will NOT be overturned by the
supreme court.

> appeal and then whatever new regs the government decides to put into
> effect. If you want crypto for export, lobby your congresscritter
> in support of one of the SAFE variants that are being proposed.
> Even then, there are Linux hackers in other countries that have export
> controls; it's unclear what would happen if the US regs were lifted.

It seems to me that if the export controls on the crypto are released in
the US for open-source projects, that the groups could base themselves in
the United States. It seems to me like that would work, wouldn't it?

It seems that currently, the US Government is saying, "Sure, Open-sourced
software may be exported 'cuz we can crack it then if we need to."
They'll think that, and not say it, anyway. But, that's not necessarily
correct. We'll see what they think about it then.

> (France historically has had even worse controls, though recent
> indications are that they may lift them completely. Russia and
> several Central and South American countries also have strong crypto
> controls).

France doesn't even allow PGP use in email for crypto! That sux! But,
I've read that they're going to be lifting them and replacing some of the
laws so that what will happen is that crypto exportation and use will be
legal, but not at all during declared times of war.

>
> Followups on crypto legislation should probably go elsewhere.
>

Um, where? We're talking about the crypto in the Linux kernel -- it is a
bit off topic, but still, this is an issue that DOES pertain to the
kernel.

BTW, can someone give me a link to this so called "reiser fs"?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Trausch
President of Linux Operations, ADK Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADK Computers, Walbridge Office E-Mail: mtrausch@wcnet.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Scattered showers my ass!" - Noah

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [2.2.8] undefined reference to `disable_irq_nosync' (+ fix)"
- Previous message: Kroah-Hartman, Greg/EXEUG3: "RE: 2.3.x wish list?"