🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <a_rubin.724977120@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:

>(2>) We've gone through this.  I haven't tracked the exception to the
>exception to the exceptions in the regulations, but it is unclear whether
>"public domain" (meaning essentially, published) crypto software is covered
>by ITAR.

" It would be useless to continue this given that you seem to be
making this up as you go along. I've quoted the law that says PKP is
covered, and if you claim an exception to an exception you have to
produce it. Since you seem not to know what it says, and the specific
definition of "public domain" in the exception is critical to the
discussion I'm at a loss to how to continue. The obligation is on me
to produce the law backing my assertions and I've done so. The ball
is now in your court.

>>Next Vesselin claims U.S. users may obtain PGP legally from a number 
>>of U.S. sites, which he lists. He is mistaken. It is on those sites 
>>illegally, for reasons stated just above, and ftping them to other 
>>U.S. sites is just as illegal. It does not matter who did the
>>importing; possession of illegally imported munitions is illegal.
>>Maybe in Bulgaria what is physically possible is equivalent to what is 
>>legal, but not in the U.S.

> >See (1>) above re patents.  

You seem not to be listening here. The issue of the legality of PGP is
not a patent one but a Munitions Act one, since the U.S. copies were
brought in from outside the U.S. without a Munitions Act import
license, and since PGP includes IDEA, it requires one.

David