Rich Graves wrote:
[on hacktic]
netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10 netscape-fts2-nt.exe Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz SSL 3.0 source code netscape32us-30b5.exe Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT
And thus it begins... I think it's a bad idea to provoke the TLAs like this, but I suppose it's inevitable.
Why is it a bad idea? If you don't do it, you support the ITAR by your lack of action! Every day that you don't export strong crypto you assist the enemy.
(But doesn't anyone use Macs or Suns?)
Mac download didn't work yesterday. The download page doesn't say if the Solaris versions are for Sparc or Intel (they are different and incompatible binaries, aren't they?).
By the way, is it possible to get a certificate for the Fast Track 128 bit servers outside of north america?
Why would you want one when the source for Apache-SSL is available?
Just for fun. To show the TLAs what complete morons they are...
Besides, it's a Serious Copyright Violation, said with minimal irony. This whole thing isn't Netscape's fault; in fact, they're doing their best to be the good guys.
Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are probably secretly applauding the brave exporters.
Anonymous wrote:
Rich Graves wrote:
[on hacktic]
netscape-fts2-hp10.tar.gz Fast Track Server 2.0 for HPUX10 netscape-fts2-nt.exe Fast Track Server 2.0 for WinNT netscape-hpus-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for HP-UX netscape-linux-30b5.tar.gz Navigator 3.0b5 for Linux netscape-ssl30-src.tar.gz SSL 3.0 source code netscape32us-30b5.exe Navigator 3.0b5 for Win95/NT
And thus it begins... I think it's a bad idea to provoke the TLAs like this, but I suppose it's inevitable.
Why is it a bad idea? If you don't do it, you support the ITAR by your lack of action! Every day that you don't export strong crypto you assist the enemy.
Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? Do you believe it will make them change the law? No. What it will do is make them remove our permission to distribute this stuff. As for your claim that not breaking the law supports it, I must remind you that Jim Barksdale has testified before congress on several occasions about how braindead ITAR is. Just because we don't fight it the way you want us to doesn't mean we support it.
(But doesn't anyone use Macs or Suns?)
Mac download didn't work yesterday. The download page doesn't say if the Solaris versions are for Sparc or Intel (they are different and incompatible binaries, aren't they?).
A lot of people have been downloading the Mac version. What was the problem you were having? If you're not seeing the NoCookie problem, please try again. I think we've got most of the other problems licked. The Solaris versions are for Sparc.
Besides, it's a Serious Copyright Violation, said with minimal irony. This whole thing isn't Netscape's fault; in fact, they're doing their best to be the good guys.
Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are probably secretly applauding the brave exporters.
You are wrong. We are worried that our permission to provide these products will be withdrawn. If we could do it legally, we'd let anyone download it who wants it. But we can't. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
The government has yet to enforce ITAR. The only thing they have been doing is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto. If anyone was ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional. - -- Mark PGP encrypted mail prefered Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMfGfu7Zc+sv5siulAQGCCgP+JApL6HQ31ZbG2j/FDmc7LJMjszd6ZcA1 GZDWMzPbI+JNt4zooUsYR9uJoNWz3NppdtRc7y6jp6etddTq+le99EDexujc2DSn s3rq0NSaK0VwZIee0GWhaWahw+URxDNU4A5gWsd/oz3UhVA9R/ltIwtwwE2ctxgi Iv9M/1Ftuoc= =rCQr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR?
The government has yet to enforce ITAR. The only thing they have been doing is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto. If anyone was ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certainly be found to be unconstitutional.
So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape into it. I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only need one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands. - -rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMfHPwpNcNyVVy0jxAQEckQH/UfScMaluCISTxIQeFEGysHlJ0bdEirJS XVnuXDA/CPlD7TtCHBOUCcoCn/bCq5rMngLkbtKvDMHCgpRiADTpuA== =BWaW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rich Graves writes: : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- : : On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote: : > On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote: : > : > > Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously : > > believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? : > : > The government has yet to enforce ITAR. The only thing they have been doin : g : > is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto. If anyone w : as : > ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certain : ly : > be found to be unconstitutional. : : So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape into : it. : : I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only need : one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands. : Fortunately one does not have to be prosecuted to test the constitutionality of the ITAR as they apply to cryptography: the Bernstein and Karn cases have already been brought and at least one other is in the pipeline. But no one seems to be setting up a Legal Attack Fund to support such litigation. Perhaps some of those active on the cypherpunks list would be interested in creating and supporting such a fund. One would hope that those corporate interests who keep complaining about how the ITAR cut into their potential profits would be willing to contribute. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Mark M. wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote:
Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? The government has yet to enforce ITAR. The only thing they have been doing is threatening companies who make products with strong crypto. If anyone was ever actually put on trial for a violation of ITAR, it would almost certainly So do it. None of this anonymous bullshit, or trying to drag Netscape into it. I'd donate whatever I could to a Cypherpunk Legal Defense Fund. We only need one volunteer with a lot of time on his/her hands.
Put up enough money to defend me and tell me how I can get arrested. I'm not doing a lot at the moment, and I wouldn't mind getting my 15 minutes of fame at this point. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@smoke.suba.com
At 3:27 PM -0700 7/20/96, Tom Weinstein wrote:
And thus it begins... I think it's a bad idea to provoke the TLAs like this, but I suppose it's inevitable.
Why is it a bad idea? If you don't do it, you support the ITAR by your lack of action! Every day that you don't export strong crypto you assist the enemy.
Why not consider what the consequences will be? Do you seriously believe that this will make the government stop enforcing ITAR? Do you believe it will make them change the law? No. What it will do is make them remove our permission to distribute this stuff.
Remind anyone of the old aphorism "I will fight to the death the right to say it. Your death."? David
participants (8)
-
David Sternlight -
Mark M. -
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
Perry E. Metzger -
Peter D. Junger -
Rich Graves -
snow -
Tom Weinstein