Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:23:20 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Cc: Colin Percival <cperciva@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/ed Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/cvs/cvs Makefile src/kerberos5 Makefile.inc src/lib/libfetch Makefile Makefile src/lib/libpam/modules/pam_ksu Makefile ... Message-ID: <1091823800.17455.9.camel@myrddin> In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.1.20040806122530.03d6cb40@popserver.sfu.ca> References: <200408060727.i767R87w004556@repoman.freebsd.org> <1091818349.17455.2.camel@myrddin> <6.1.0.6.1.20040806122530.03d6cb40@popserver.sfu.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 20:36, Colin Percival wrote: > At 11:52 06/08/2004, Paul Richards wrote: > >On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 08:27, Colin Percival wrote: > >> Join the 21st century: Cryptography is no longer an optional component > >> of releases. > >This might not be as dead an issue as people think. From information > >I've received recently it seems that exporting crypto from the UK now > >requires an export license. > > When I asked DTI about crypto a couple years ago, their response > was "it's open source? In that case, go right ahead". Of course, the > usual caveats about not exporting to embargoed countries and not > assisting in the production of WMD still apply, but those restrictions > would apply regardless of whether we ship cryptographic binaries. In this case it wasn't open source, it was a commercial product that had FreeBSD in it, specifically it was "tangible" and that's significant when interpreting the export rules. The following report shows that it's not always the case that exporting crypto does not require a licence. http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/cls2.htm
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1091823800.17455.9.camel>