🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec22.015459.21651@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

>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.

You have not produced the law....you have produced the regulations. 
Legally, the obligation would be on me to produce the law, to show that the
regulations are not consistent with the law, but I don't feel any moral
obligation to do so.  I may get around to it.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.