🚀 go-pugleaf

Ed Hamrick posts a long re-quote from the export rules in response to
a message from Tenney. It would be helpful if he quoted only the
specific language applicable to refute Tenney's contention, since
we have moved past the general assertion to specifics that will
either confirm or refute the contention that if DES is published
in a book, the software is exportable.

Now to the details:

The contention was as above.
Tenney reported on a case of prohibition of export of software.
Hamrick counter-argues that source code is o.k., by quotation.

It may be (I'm not an attorney) that the regulations define
source code as something machine-readable, and not printed
in a document. If so it would mean Tenney's exception example
was valid, despite Hamrick's contentions, and that you could
export what we might CALL source code, printed in a book,
but could not export a listing that could be read into a
machine directly and compiled. 

Note that the law was perhaps written without consideration of OCR
devices, which WOULD confuse the issue even further. Dunno what a
judge would make of a case where a book was exported and the person at
the other end used a scanner to read the source code. My guess is that
it would probably be o.k. but that the government would still insist
that machine-readable source code was still a violation. Then the
lawyers would get into the charming discussion called "But isn't an
OCR a machine? If it's o.k.  how is it different from more
conventional machine-readable source code? The only thing I can figure
out is to agree with those who say the whole thing is a muddle.

Hamrick also quotes part of the regulations which permit export
of software if it is sold here for just the cost of publication.
It may be that Tenney's friend had a product for which he
was charging more than that, thus not covered by the relevant
paragraphs.

My own conclusion is that this particular area is likely to
need redefinition to make the rules unambiguous. It would
seem from the extensive Q&A that the government is really trying
to make things understandable, but simply hasn't done a good
job yet of clarifying some ambiguities. Knowing the bureaucratic
mind, until some egregious case comes up, they will probably
leave us in limbo.

BUT the rules may have to be redefined to clarify cases such
as those we're discussing. When that happens, another opportunity
will arise for those who wish to restrict civil liberties in the
name of national security to drive a coach-and-four through
the regulations. This baby needs to be watched very closely
by the EFF, CPSR, ACLU, or any other group that feels a strong
responsibility for intervention early in the law-making process.

-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail