Re: German government press release on Wassenaar (fwd)
I think the key idea which allows Open Source to be exempted is based on the availability to all eyes of the technology--not the legal rights attached to the software. The fact that the knowledge contained in Open Source software is available to all is the key. The legal right to use that knowledge is not quite the issue. If the knowledge in the software becomes "common knowledge" then defining its (illegal) export becomes extremely difficult.
From this point of view, I agree with the author of the original statement--this could be a very important boost for Open Source crypto.
APF
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:50:04 +0100 From: Alexander Kjeldaas <astor@guardian.no> Subject: Re: German government press release on Wassenaar
I applied for an examination of the Open Source definition to the department for foreign affairs in Norway. The response (no surprise) was that Open Source is compliant with what the Wassenaar-agreement calls "public domain" software.
Actualy that is surprising since Open Sourse does not imply the loss of rights by the author as public domain does.
If this is so and Germany interprets Open Source in this way then the OS movement will fail in Germany (at least). There will be no motive for authors to release their work since they will be in effect releasing all rights to it, not the goal of OS at all. The impact on this for closed source derivitive products is also of some interest.
I wonder what RMS will have to say on that one...
____________________________________________________________________
What raises the standard of living may well diminish the quality of life.
The Club of Rome
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In <3.0.3.32.19981212153310.006dc6bc@209.204.247.83>, on 12/12/98 at 03:33 PM, "Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2@apf2.com> said:
I think the key idea which allows Open Source to be exempted is based on the availability to all eyes of the technology--not the legal rights attached to the software.
The fact that the knowledge contained in Open Source software is available to all is the key. The legal right to use that knowledge is not quite the issue. If the knowledge in the software becomes "common knowledge" then defining its (illegal) export becomes extremely difficult.
I don't know about the rest of the signing nations but in the US at least there is the unresolved issue of wether source code = protected free speech under the 1st Amendment. Considering the crypto section of the agreement is up for review and a new vote in the year 2000 it may be that they are waiting to see how this issue plays out in the courts. Does anyone know what happened to the EU decision not to implement crypto restrictions despite US pressures? Does the Wassenaar signify a change in direction for the EU or do we have two different groups in Europe with conflicting policies?? - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- Tag-O-Matic: I smashed a Window and saw... OS/2. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i OS/2 for non-commercial use Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 Charset: cp850 wj8DBQE2cqehlHpjA6A1ypsRAtyWAJ9782sKj0hRWAG6AzQRPct5U2mhGwCfTuLl w8Png1jAQmuiFWOMxKTAyWE= =r0Dm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (2)
-
Albert P. Franco, II -
William H. Geiger III