🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec22.203159.23174@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:

+In the U.S., I argue the law, since the issue is patents and that RSA
+has one, and that the Munitions act covers imports as well as exports.

If your intent is to warn us all that we might be breaking the law,
consider us warned.  Personally, until I hear from a disinterested
attorney with expertise in this field, or until I see a conviction in
a court of law, I'm not convinced.  But I have been warned.  Can we get
on with it?

+In Europe, where I have never argued RSA's patents apply, and I have
+never argued the U.S. Munitions laws apply, I argue the ethics of
+taking an invention without compensation.  Like most such discussions
+here, these arguments have evolved as we learn from each other. That
+argument also applies in the U.S.

If you really are arguing a moral stand, perhaps you can explain why
at the end of 17 years (or whatever the protection is for patents),
your moral and ethical obligation suddenly disappears?

+Thus I suggest for Vesselin's (and others') consideration that they
+may be violating the laws of the countries they are in by using PGP
+without (for example) getting permission from the appropriate
+Minister, as in France. If true, that would make all the posturing
+about how the U.S. Munitions laws don't apply to Europe and hence PGP
+is o.k. completely bogus.

+In the case of Vesselin, specifically, I suggest he check out
+the German crypto and Munitions laws, since that's where he
+apparently has PGP on a computer. If he's planning to use it
+in Bulgaria, he may also wish to check out those laws.

+David

I see, now you are a shill for governments world-wide.  Don't you 
have any interests of your own to watch out for?