🚀 go-pugleaf

I believe Arthur Rubin to be in error when he argues that if it's
public domain technical data it's ok, and so PGP is ok.

First of all the language of the act I posted makes clear that
software, algorithms, flow charts are all controlled matter in the
cryptographic area. Thus the sophistries posted by some that
algorithms aren't covered, or that software is really algorithms and
thus not covered, or that they are exempt as technical data, or that
technical data is not covered are all refuted by the specific language
of the law, and those who made the above assertions are revealed to
have been making it up as they go along, and presenting their
fantasies as facts in an attempt to sustain an unsustainable position.
One of the problems with bright people is that they often "make up"
facts to bolster their arguments.

Second, something doesn't become public domain simply because it's
published. Instead of asserting, I suggest Rubin post the specific
language of the law about 'public domain' as I have about software.

Finally, without having read the Scientific American article I don't
know if they violated the law or not, but this thread isn't about
Scientific American, so I consider that a side show better treated
as a separate matter for those interested.

David