gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/04/86)
I got into a hassle last month for posting a DES program to mod.sources
because someone claimed that I was breaking the export control law.
I spent the afternoon down at the Federal Building and discovered that
export policy is in better shape than I thought. Basically, you can
export any technical data to any destination if it "has been made
generally available to the public in any form". This export is under
a "general license" which is available to everyone without any paperwork.
So, you should expect to see the DES posting again (it was canceled)
and to see Crypt Breaker's Workbench on mod.sources soon.
Here are the regs for all you policy hounds:
Export Administration Regulations, Part 370.2, Definitions.
"General License. A license established by the US Department
of Commerce for which no application is required and for which
no document is granted or issued. It is available for use by
all persons, except those listed in and prohibited by the
provisions of Supplement No. 1 to Part 388, and permits export
within the provisions thereof as prescribed in the Export
Administration Regulations. These general licenses are not
applicable to exports under the licensing jurisdiction of agencies
other than the Department of Commerce."
Part 379.1, Definitions.
"... All software is technical data."
Part 379.2, Licenses to Export.
"Except as provided in Part 370.3(a), an export of technical
data must be made under either a US Department of Commerce
general license or a validated export license. General
licenses GTDA and GTDR apply to specific types of exports of
technical data..."
Part 379.3, General license GTDA: Technical Data Available to all
Destinations.
"A General License designated GTDA is hereby established
authorizing the export to all destinations of technical data
described in 379.3(a), (b), or (c) below:
(a) Data Generally Available
Data that have been made generally available to the public in
any form, including--
(1) Data released orally or visually at open conferences,
lectures, trade shows, or other media open to the public; and
(2) Publications that may be purchased without restrictions
at a nominal cost, or obtained without costs, or are readily
available at libraries open to the public.
The term "nominal cost" as used in 379.3(a)(2) above, is intended
to reflect realistically only the cost of preparing and distributing
the publication and not the intrinsic value of the technical data.
If the cost is such as to prevent the technical data from being
generally available to the public, General License GTDA would not
be applicable.
(b) Scientific or Educational Data ...
(c) Patent Applications ..."
--
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa
May the Source be with you!niland@hpfcms.HP.COM ( Bob Niland ) (10/05/86)
re: Exporting 'crypt' > Part 379.1, Definitions. > "... All software is technical data." I encourage you to check a little more deeply into export of cryptographic technology. We [at HP] would like to ship crypt with HP-UX, but from what I have heard of our investigations, it has been determined that crypt is considered to be "munitions"(!) as well as "technical data", and is therefore restricted by some other set of regulations in addition to the ones you listed. Yes, I know, "But DES has been published! The Rooskies already know all about it!" Well, the apparent theory behind the munitions classification is something like "Yes, and they know how to make bombs too. That doesn't mean we'll sell them ours." The argument seems a bit strained to me. Our lawyers periodically do battle with the great fire-breathing dragon of "National Security" concerning this issue. I imagine that until we get a specific green flag on it, we will continue to leave crypt out of our product. Regards, Hewlett-Packard Bob Niland 3404 East Harmony Road [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn Fort Collins CO 80525 This posting is supplied for information purposes only and does not represent the official position of the Hewlett-Packard Company.
tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (10/07/86)
In article <1176@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >I got into a hassle last month for posting a DES program to mod.sources >because someone claimed that I was breaking the export control law. > >I spent the afternoon down at the Federal Building and discovered that >export policy is in better shape than I thought. Basically, you can >export any technical data to any destination if it "has been made >generally available to the public in any form". This export is under >a "general license" which is available to everyone without any paperwork. I hope that this is a recent change. A friend of mine publishes a public domain FORTH system that has been sold in stores and on BBSs for years. He was told by the Feds (I don't remember which) that he could not export the system. He replied that anyone can walk into xyz store and buy it, but the answer was still no. It was my impression that SOME software is somehow considered a no-no for export. -- Glenn Tenney UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney ARPA: well!tenney@LLL-CRG.ARPA Delphi and MCI Mail: TENNEY As Alphonso Bodoya would say... (tnx boulton) Disclaimers? DISCLAIMERS!? I don' gotta show you no stinking DISCLAIMERS!
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/09/86)
> I hope that this is a recent change. A friend of mine publishes a public > domain FORTH system... > He was told by the Feds (I don't remember which) that he could not export > the system... The Feds do not necessarily know and understand the details of the law. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
artm@phred.UUCP (Art Marriott) (10/10/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR HARASSMENT ***
In relation to this, a year or two ago the IEEE sort of gave up and started
submitting drafts of the papers of vitrually all technical conferences it
sponsored to the Department of Defense for prior approval. Prior to this
they had to deal with DOD representatives arriving a day or two before a
conference and insisting on going through the proceedings and deleting any
items they thought might relate to "sensitive technology". Made for something
of a mad scramble to edit slides, speakers' notes and such, and in a few cases
made it hard to fill up the available time with what was left.
It seems that since the Reagan administration took office the military has
operated under the assumption that ALL scientific and technological develop-
ments in the US are potentially its property if they can possibly be used for
military purposes. I don't know if this has been challenged lately in court,
but most technical organizations either don't want to bother with it or are
aware that a substantial percentage of their membership work for the government
in one way or another.
What's regrettable is that this in fact tends to stifle development of tech-
nology. Eventually the boys in uniform won't have to worry about keeping our
great stuff from getting out of the country because we won't have anything that
anybody else would want.
Art Marriott
Physio-Control
tikal!phred!artm
...............................................................................
Opinions? Opinions? I don't see any opinions...