From owner-freebsd-security Wed Jul 26 18:18:37 1995 Return-Path: security-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id SAA00401 for security-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:18:37 -0700 Received: from husky.cslab.vt.edu (husky.cs.vt.edu [128.173.41.87]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA00391 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 18:18:35 -0700 Received: (jaitken@localhost) by husky.cslab.vt.edu (8.6.12/8.6.4) id VAA19165; Wed, 26 Jul 1995 21:18:25 -0400 From: Jeff Aitken Message-Id: <199507270118.VAA19165@husky.cslab.vt.edu> Subject: Re: secure/ changes... To: sjb@austin.ibm.com (Scott Brickner) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 21:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Cc: jaitken@cslab.vt.edu, sef@kithrup.com, security@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <9507262343.AA18171@ozymandias.austin.ibm.com> from "Scott Brickner" at Jul 26, 95 06:43:50 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 791 Sender: security-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > I assume you bring this up to point out that the legality of the > issue is independent from persecution on the issue. True. That was exactly my point. Furthermore, the fact that members of the FreeBSD core team just finished a similar ordeal with USL makes it all the more understandable that at least some of them are hesitant to even approach a "gray" issue like this one. > ITAR doesn't cover import. > Were import illegal, PRZ would also be harrassed for the import > of IDEA. He isn't, ergo import is legal. Although I freely admit that I have little or no knowledge of the issues involved, and that you seem to have a fairly good grasp of them, it is generally a logical fallacy to construe the absence of one fact as proof of another. :) -- Jeff Aitken jaitken@vt.edu