December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Netscape download requirements
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why can't anybody in US write a little program that compares the two 4.5 meg install files and make a patcher? (It seems simple to do, is very inconspicuous and of course does not violate the ITAR - although it might violate some copyright stuff, but hey, whos willing to enforce something like that, when it's anonymously posted or mailed) I suppose the difference will be small, if one consideres an offset after the alternative parts (something like: generalgeneralgeneralUSUSUSUSUSUSUSUSgeneralgeneral and generalgeneralgeneralWORLDWORLDgeneralgeneral remo ----------< fate favors the prepared mind >---------- Remo Pini Fon 1: +41 1 350 28 82 mailto:rp@rpini.com Fon 2: +41 1 465 31 90 http://www.rpini.com/remopini/ Fax: +41 1 350 28 84 --------< words are what reality is made of >--------

3 2

FC97: Anguilla, Anyone?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- July 19, 1996 Boston, Massachusetts "What are you doing the last week of February, 1997? How about going to Anguilla?" Those are the two lines which started an awful lot of interesting stuff... It was the end of May, and I was winding up a contract for someone, and was thinking about what to do next. I got to thinking about what a great year it has been since about September or so, when 36 Boston-area financial cryptography types, Peter Cassidy and I founded the Digital Commerce Society of Boston. Since then, the whole idea of actually selling stuff over the net, not just displaying it there, has really caught on. I've written rants all over the net, done guest editorials for InfoWorld and Wired, spoken at Apple and Internet World, and done lots of other great stuff, all around the emerging technology of digital commerce, and, in particular, financial cryptography on public networks. We've had speakers at DCSB ranging from Win Treese of Open Market and Donald Eastlake of Cybercash, to Mark Bernkopf, a certified Beltway Bandit, by way of the Fed's Open Market Operations and the Clinton White House, to a well-known cypherpunk, Perry Metzger, giving a talk wryly titled "Gold-Denominated Burmese Opium Futures?". Julie Rackliffe, membership manager of Boston's Computer Museum, has been an enormous help, organizing the first of the Society's large activities, a networking party at the Downtown Harvard Club's 38th-floor lounge, featuring a beautiful sunset, and complementary cocktails and hors' deuvres, all sponsored by the Open Software Foundation. At the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in April, I met Ray Hirschfeld, manager of CWI, and director of the CAFE digital cash project. I also met Ian Goldberg, who made himself famous this winter by hacking a great big hole in Netscape's SSL protocol, and then, a few months later, doing the same thing to Digicash's ecash mint software, both of which are now much safer to use as a result of his efforts. That evening, in a digital-coin session that lasted until about 2 AM, about 10 of us die-hards, including Ian and Ray, talked about the emerging technology of financial cryptography, and how it was going to be impossible for anyone to ignore Real Soon Now. Other people, ;-), muttered about "asking forgiveness, not permission" from the various government regulators around the world, and just making stuff like anonymous digital cash a fait accompli on the internet from a small island banking haven somewhere. Thinking about all this reminded me of someone else, who actually *lived* on a small island banking haven, Vince Cate, another cypherpunk who founded Offshore Information Services, on the island of Anguilla in the eastern Carribbean. When I was a kid, I used to live on nearby St. Thomas, and as a result of our common interests in everything from kitesailing and multihulls to technomadness, Vince and I found ourselves on lots of other e-mail lists besides cypherpunks. This winter was especially nasty in Boston, and I found myself pining for the tropics more than once, particularly in February, when the weather was its worst... And then, as they say here in Massachusetts, "Dawn broke on Marble-head." It all came together: Why not have a financial cryptography conference, in February, on Anguilla? Someplace where, given the internet access already there, someday, someone could actually create the "First Anonymous Bank of Cyberspace". (Well, maybe not this year. ;-)) This conference idea just kept sounding better and better. I kept tweaking it as I thought about it. I thought it should be a peer-reviewed conference, where people could not only talk about the state of the art in cryptography as it is applied to finance, but the states of the art in finance, law, and economics, as they applied to strong cryptography on a public network. I added a workshop the week before, where the technically clueful but cryptographically unaware could get hands-on training in setting up SSL servers, or Digicash mintware, or learn about digital bearer certificates and other animals in the financial crypto bestiary. I thought about exhibit space, where people could show their wares. About having the bandwidth to support this... and that's when I e-mailed Vince Cate with the idea, starting with the line, "Vince, what are you doing in February?" Vince *really* liked the idea. :-). We kicked stuff around for a bit, and I then approached Ray Hirschfeld (with the same two questions you see at the top of this letter), to see whether he'd be interested in putting together a conference committee and running the conference from the "content" side. After some thinking, he came back with a "yes", and, after I got myself off the floor, ;-), I e-mailed Ian Goldberg, who said *he'd* be interested, *if* he could get his advisor at Berkeley to approve Ian's taking some time off in February, which he thought probable. I e-mailed Julie Rackliffe, and she said she'd be delighted to moonlight a bit and handle marketing for both workshop and conference, and the management of the conference itself. Vince came back later with what looks to be a conference site, complete with estimates for T1 internet access (yes, Virginia, there are T1s in the Caribbean). The site, like the rest of Anguilla, came through Hurricane Bertha with flying colors. Ray has even come up with a simple name for the conference, "Financial Cryptography 1997", or FC97, with apologies to Mr. Kaczynski. :-). Ian came back to say he was in. So, it looks like we're ready for the next step, which is to raise money from about 10 charter sponsors to cover what will be our sunk costs prior to collecting revenue for exhibit space, workshop and conference revenue. Here's what what we have in mind so far... Ray has started to assemble the conference committee with some impressive names on it so far -- including some who will surprise you -- which will referee papers. We're hoping for the conference as a whole to be more in the way of a union of cryptography and finance than an intersection of the two fields. The conference procedings will be published, particularly on the web, but on paper as well. The conference itself will run from Monday, February 24, through Friday, February 28, 1997, from the hours of 8:30AM to 12:30PM. The afternoons will be taken up with various sponsored activities, one each afternoon, including lunch, and each evening, including dinner. We're figuring that the total number of conference hours in this conference will be the same as most other technical conferences, but they'll be stretched out over the whole week. We did this for several reasons. The first is, we're in Anguilla, and people *will* bug out in the afternoons whether we want them to or not, so we might as well bug out together, and the second is *also* that we're in Anguilla, and people can't go anywhere else after going to all the trouble of getting there anyway, so we might as well stretch the conference out over the whole week. :-). Finally, like Cannes, people will be going to this conference for much more than the technical sessions. We're leaving lots of time for informal discussions and networking, and, of course, for seeing the exhibits and products of our sponsors and exhibitors. We're currently hoping for a target price for a conference ticket of (all prices in US dollars) $1,000, a nice round number, which should include breakfast. Lunch and dinner will be paid for by the afternoon activity sponsor and the evening activity sponsor, respectively. We're hoping to arrange conference discounts on airfare to Anguilla and lodging. The workshop, run by Ian Goldberg, and to be held the week before (February 17/24), will run during the same hours, 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM, but, given the educational nature of the workshop, the afternoons and evening will be open for lab time to experiment with new technologies and to learn more on one's own or in the company of one of the instructors. We want a 5-to-1 student-instructor ratio, and we're planning to hire instructors, all known to the net community, who, along with their stipend, will receive a complementary conference ticket and room and board for three weeks (one week pre-workshop preparation, and one week each for the workshop and conference). We plan to charge $5,000 for each workshop participant. We want to have a T1 to the net, a workstation for each participant and several different kinds of servers to work with. There will be exhibit space for companies who just want to exhibit and not be a conference sponsor. These companies will also get 2 conference tickets per booth. There will also be booths reserved for charter sponsors at discount prices. So, right now, we're looking for 10 charter sponsors. These companies will have their names on all conference communications, including e-mail, banners, and collateral literature. In addition, their names will be on either an afternoon or evening activity, including dinner or lunch, where applicable. They also get 5 conference tickets, and that discount on booth space. As I said before, the sponsorship money will be used to cover sunk costs: advance fees, deposits and the like, plus an operating reserve. Money various people are going to want up-front, before proceeding with any work. A full accounting of money spent will be available to the sponsors, since we consider them our most important stakeholders in this first-ever Financial Cryptography conference and workshop. Of course, as we determine costs for specific things, there will also be an opportunity for sponsors in-kind, but right now, we're looking for actual money. :-). Upon collection of revenue from the conference, workshops, and exhibits, paying off the costs incurred to date, the sponsorship money will then be used to pay for the specific activity they want to sponsor. Any money left over, of course, is ours, :-), but sponsors *will* get their money's worth. We promise. Ray and the conference committee are getting reimbursement for their expenses, but in the "chinese wall" tradition of these kinds of conferences, they are not being paid anything for their time. Ian, as workshop leader, is getting paid a good fee for his time (*much* better than t-shirts and bugs bounties), plus a share of the workshop's profits, if any, and the workshop instructors will get a good stipend. Vince, Julie and I are going to get paid for our efforts (well, we hope :-)) but, believe me, nobody's going to get rich doing this conference, by any stretch. We'll all be very happy if we can make it happen, everyone is happy when it's over, and we get paid reasonably for the time we spent on it. The sponsors' choice of activity blocks, afternoon or evening, or for any day of the week, will be on a first come, first served basis. The first 10 sponsors to get us a check gets those slots. If we don't get enough sponsors by our self-imposed deadline of September 15th, then all checks will be returned and we'll cancel the conference, or at least examine other options. Sponsors' checks should be payable, in U.S. Dollars, to "Financial Cryptography, 1997". After we get requisite number of sponsors, the checks will be deposited in an Anguillan bank, and the partnership running the conference and workshop will operate under Anguillan law. For the time being, I'm the net.contact for particulars, if you know anyone who's interested in helping us sponsor this event. Julie Rackliffe will handle most of the actual contact with the sponsors after we're through this first "expression of interest" phase. Once Ray gets his conference committee assembled and they've finished writing one, look for a Call for Papers in all the usual lists and newsgroups. Once Ian has assembled his team of instructors, look for information on the workshop and its contents from him in the same kinds of places. I'll announce when we have the requisite sponsorship as soon as we get the sponsor list filled. Some time after that announcement, Vince Cate will be putting together a website on Anguilla which will not only offer information about the conference, but also a way to register, and hopefully pay for :-), your conference tickets. With a stiff tailwind, we might be able to arrange travel and hotel reservations too, or at least point you to web-savvy travel people who can help you. So, if you, or any one you know, is interested in being a sponsor for this event, please let me know. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by our sponsorship pricing. We think it's well within the signing authority of most of the senior people who read this, and should fit quite reasonably into the promotion budget of any firm who wants to compete in the financial cryptography business, or any business it affects, as these kinds of markets begin to take off. Well, that's it. Here's hoping you'll join us in Anguilla. Then you, too, will know what *you're* doing the last week in February! Cheers, Bob Hettinga FC97 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMe+r7PgyLN8bw6ZVAQH6mAP+PINf7JSZzUj5+wnvb4v6kbl2q4r1mrbm BAF5fBTk3vCYT+Kljm7sFbFptq5HQP0kU7xqVUkILQ/Gc2wSWPXzhHAaKNq90tct pJzw/cVAISZyBO+BNqHVJEQHFJEyo93jmuEzKUhainULQMX1dLnglV1PD7m754t0 d7VmPf1pi64= =883q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:48 AM 7/19/96, Mike Duvos wrote: >Filtering is wonderful. Long live filtering. > >I used to read "Scientific American" too, back in the days when >the table of contents wasn't illustrated with cute little icons. ... Well, of course I agree, and have said as much. "Sci Am" used to be so much better, before the "Wired" people moved in. (As to comments by some others that both of the mags I cited have carried articles about piercings, tattoos, gay rights, blah blah...of course, I would not expect otherwise. It is the blaring of the issues that I avoid, not all mention.) >If I had kids, I am sure Tim would support my right to give them >access to the entire universe of human knowlege and thought as >early as possible, and to let them form their own opinions on >every conceivable subject, even if those opinions differed from >my own. Where I suspect we differ, is that I would not only >advocate such an advantage for my kids, but for his as well. No, we wouldn't differ, depending on what is meant by "advocacy." You are perfectly within your rights to advocate what you wish, and I may even listen. Where advocacy crosses into coercion is where I draw the line. Mandatory indoctrination in schools which are either mandatory to attend (given the truancy laws) or taxpayer-funded is "coercion" in my book. >The problem with giving parents the absolute right to control >their childrens' input of memes until the children are too old >and stupid to learn anything new, is that it creates generational >propagation of obsolete ideologies. All the Dole children think >exactly like Bob. All the Hitler children think exactly like >Adolf. Same for the Mengele children, the Nixon children, the >Stalin children, the Netanyahu children, etc... Well, I rather doubt this. The Kennedy children were liberals, not fascists like dear old Dad. Most tycoons have liberal, do-gooder children. Newt's half-sister is as different from Newt as one can imagine. And so on. In any case, even conceding your point (which I don't), the fact that certain memes tend to get propagated generationally is no argument for forced intervention by the State in the home situation. >The movement towards accessing information from home PCs, coupled >with the new "parents rights" movement and filtering software, >creates a situation where no one under the age of 18 can have >access to any information their parents don't want them to see. I don't support the CDA or any other such laws felonizing what I or other content providers offer. Thus, "Tim's Really Kool Sites" could offer access to all sorts of material. If a parent blocks access to this, this is not an issue for the State to worry about. (By State I include other entities beside the family.) If, however, Junior's friends have unrestricted access, he can access the interesting sites there. (And no, this would not be a matter for the State (courts) to interfere with. Think of it this way: it is _still_ up to parents to control access...that is the consistent principle.) >As the Web replaces the library, young people won't even be able >to preserve the same anonymous access to controversial >information they have always had in the past. This is a step >backwards for youth rights. They should use Web proxies. And they are welcome to come to my house and use my Web tools! (Again, no law should forbid either proxies or "library-type" use, consistent with a non-coercive society.) >The age of filtering has arrived. You can filter your childrens' >access to sex manuals, grandma's access to the elder abuse web >page, and your underpaid Ethiopian leaf blower operator's access >to anything having to do with laws against sub-minimum wages or >slavery. I can't filter my Ethiopian's acces to the Web if he has his own account, on his own system. I suppose if I were paying for it, or if I were letting him use my system, then I would have whatever filters invoked that I wished. Seems fair to me. ("My house, my rules.") A more realistic and timely example is that corporations are restricting access to pornographic and/or frivolous sites on the Web...seems a lot of folks at large companies tend to do exactly what I like to do: wander the Web and find interesting stuff. Except I'm on my own time, employees at Lockheed and Intel who look like they're busy on the Web actually aren't, by the standards of their companies. (How long will it be before someone builds one of those buttons that immediately switches a screen from "Minka's Sex Page" to a harmless-looking spreadsheet or seemingly work-related Web page? I guess with multiple windows and URL navigating, a fast employee can still save himself....) >As an individual who has no desire to engage in gay sex, or watch >it being performed while I am eating, I must admit my attitudes >towards the "gay community" have undergone a certain evolution in >recent years. Back in the '70s, gays supported a wide-ranging >platform of human rights issues, and a lot of activists whose >work I admired on many issues I supported "happened to be gay." My feelings exactly. The issue is part of a larger one, related to several interconnected trends/tropics, which I don't have the desire or time to discuss and so will simply list: - stridency, shrillness and militancy (where "demands" are made, chants are yelled, bridges and highways are shut down, etc.) - short attention spans, soundbites (in the press, magazines, etc.) - calls for legislation, indoctrination ("more laws") - "reclaiming" of names (blacks call themselves niggers, blacks demand that others call them "persons of color," homosexuals demand universities set up "Queer Studies" programs, etc.) I catch some interesting flak here in Santa Cruz for openly referring to blacks as "coloreds." (Hey, didn't they reclaim this name? All non-Caucasion males are, in this town, "persons of color." Thus we have "students of color," "queers of color," and the stupid phrase chanted in marches, "all womyn are people of color." Fine, "colored people" it is!) Likewise, what were once "homosexuals" became "gays." OK, I adopted this usage along with most of the rest of the country and world in the 70s. But now there are the aforementioned demands that "queer" be used. (This has become quite prevalent here in Northern California, with departments of Queer Studies, Queer Rights, etc. all over the place.) What's next, demands that we create "Fag Studies" and "Dyke Culture" departments on campus? >Now that the gay community has narrowed its focus solely to the >issue of consensual adult sodomy rights, and shown alarming signs >of sucking up to the Radical Religious Right, I really don't have Including the charming principle "all heterosexual sex is rape." All pornography is degrading to womyn and other people of color, unless, of course, it is part of the (I gather) large corpus of homosexual porn. So much for consistency. (Shockingly, Canada passed some laws restricting porn based on the arguments of feminazis like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon; they had egg on their face when lesbian erotica stores were raided.) I could go on about the bigotry of many "activists" in these communities. (I'm sure many are fine people, of course. It's the "in your face" queer activists demanding new and anti-liberty laws I object to.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Singapore officials censor U.S. newgroup posting
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This move by Singapore to censor a newsgroup posting is a good example of the overbreadth of government censorship. It's a bait-and-switch maneuver: say you're going after porn but censor "offensive" speech. Of course, this gives the lie to the Singapore government's assertion that "we are not censoring discussion groups." Some excerpts from the recent regulations requiring the registration of political or social groups: "Political and religious organisations are free to conduct discussions provided they guard against breaking the law or disrupting social harmony. The regulations ban contents that "tend to bring the Government into hatred or contempt," are "pornographic," or "depict or propagate sexual perversions such as homosexuality, lesbianism, and paedophilia." I have more information on the regulations at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Global/Singapore/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/international/ -Declan --- Singapore Internet Regulators Take First Action, Censor Posting July 19, 1996 AP-Dow Jones News Service SINGAPORE -- In its first action since assuming powers this week to police the Internet, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority has yanked off a newsgroup's posting that criticized some lawyers, a newspaper reported Friday. The SBA acted on a complaint by an unidentified law firm, which said the contents of the anonymous posting defamed some of its lawyers in Singapore, according to a report in the Straits Times newspaper Friday. The newspaper said the posting on the newsgroup was apparently made by a disgruntled client who claimed he lost a case even though his lawyers told him he could win it. The client also questioned the ability of the lawyers who belongs to one of the oldest firms in Singapore, the Straits Times said. Under new SBA regulations that came into effect Monday, the government agency has the power to ask Internet service providers to remove material that it considers objectionable. A government-appointed panel of prominent citizens decides what is objectionable. The Straits Times said the posting is believed to have been made from the U.S., which means the SBA, in keeping with its own rules, will not be able to take action against the offender. The SBA says its rules are mainly directed against pornography, anti-government or seditious views, racially motivated slurs and articles that could inflame religious passions. Since Monday, Internet providers, political parties that maintain Web sites, groups and individuals who run discussion sites on politics and religion, and on-line newspapers are deemed to have become automatically licensed. This means refusal to follow the SBA rules will result in fines. The amounts are yet to be determined. [...]

1 0

New type2.list/pubring.mix
by John A. Perry 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Everyone! There is a new type2.list/pubring.mix combination on jpunix.com. The new list reflects the re-birth of rebma. Welcome back! The combo is available through the Web at www.jpunix.com as well as anonymous FTP at ftp.jpunix.com. Note: The PGP public keyserver at jpunix.com is temporarily down. I think I'm suffering from a corrupted keyring. I'm working on getting it back up. Please be patient. John Perry - perry(a)alpha.jpunix.com - PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! WWW - http://www.jpunix.com PGP 2.62 key for perry(a)jpunix.com is on the keyservers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMfDcjVOTpEThrthvAQHfUgP/e0qcOi/3i99on9O3CrZB5n0dDEGZP83M mFspHOHGzmyoTEf71HmUzi5/1vTaNfykSj0JGM62PdVOM4hCchQsUH9IGodE0aWx L3FcIu5SQNzBZt66f2MU0QJ4uchn4lRcgtVypVJdxZZLaNDAQFwsxK2FDURuDnBm qw91fU5G3Yc= =LAmO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

pledge status
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm glad to report that a large number of people have now taken the pledge not to reply to David Sternlight's posts. Remember, replying to David almost never serves any useful purpose -- he is almost totally incapable of admitting he is wrong, and almost everyone disagrees with him already. By replying to him, you simply continue to encourage him to fill the mailing list with junk. Don't feed the Sternlight. Take the pledge. Perry

3 2

Re: American People the relation to the Police
by Seth Oestreicher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > >Well, to many of us, the wrong side won the War of the Rebellion (aka the >Civil War, aka the War Between the States, etc.). A bunch of southern >states wanted to seceed, which my reading of the founding documents said >was clearly an option if sentiment was strong enough in that direction. Even President Lincoln agreed that it was the right of the South to seceed...... > >Constitutional scholars of course debate this, and I've seen arguments that >the documents eventually agreed to in 1789-90 in some ways undercut this >"right" to seceed. I think this to be untrue, and that the signers of the >Declaration and of the Constitution would be surprised to learn that they >were signing a one-way, unreversible, no way out document, binding their >communities to be part of the United States of America forever, even if >their populace clearly wants out. > The Federalist Papers made it quite clear that the States were to remain "independant". The Federal government was *not* designed for it's own self preservation, but to preserve the collective rights of the States. We wound up with our form of government today out of pure ignorance of the populace. When was the last time a jury exercised it's right to *not* convict on the basis of a wrongful law? When was the last time someone questioned the validity of our central bank, the Federal Reserve, even though it so clearly violates the Consitution? Why doesn't the NRA use the historic representation of the Second Amendment instead of trying to have us believe we are some sort of militia? (In a literal translation of the amendment into today's English, it would read: Since we don't trust the military because it could be used against the American people, but we realize that having a trained military is important for the successful defence of the States, we will make sure that no one can take the guns of the populace so they may defend themselves from the aformentioned military.) Why does ANYONE believe that there is a seperation of church and state? Why is foreign aid allowed to continue when it is not allowed by the Constitution? (I could go on and on.....) Ignorance of our history and our real *inalienable* rights has given us the Government which so many fear today.

1 0

Re: US versions of Netscape now available
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:59 AM 7/19/96 -0700, Tom Paquin wrote: s far as company policy goes, it's a good bet that we won't >willingly break any laws. Licensing export-restricted software >to a "foreign person" (includes companies, etc) without a >particular export license would probably be a mistake which would >get corrected quickly. I don't think there is any contradiction here. ITAR arguably prohibits disclosure; it does not prohibit licensing WITHOUT explicit disclosure. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Firewall Penetration
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It depends. ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: jti @ i-manila.com.ph (Jerome Tan) @ smtp Date: 07/19/96 05:29:11 PM Subject: Firewall Penetration Is it possible to penetrate a firewall?

1 0

Re: US versions of Netscape now available
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"paquin(a)netscape.com" 20-JUL-1996 09:00:37.83 >Alex de Joode wrote: >> I would like to know what Netscape's position on the above mentioned >> scenario is .. (Uploading "possibly" received 128 bit binaries to >> official netscape mirrors outside the US, that is) (guess why ...) >I guess I should look again, but I *thought* our licenses explicitly >excepted use of "US-Only" software (defined in the license) from the >standard exclusions. I think the attys lifted some of the definitions >straight from ITAR and may have quoted 22USC. Maybe we screwed >up and got the wrong license in the beta and missed the check. >I don't know. I'll look. *sigh* BTW, is the license essentially copyright-based? If so, you're going to have trouble using it in a country that you can't legally sell/give away with limits the stuff to; it is assumed that you aren't losing anything. I may be wrong, of course, but that's my understanding of how penalties, etcetera are determined under copyright law. -Allen

1 0