🚀 go-pugleaf

Ed Hamrick offers the ITAR in machine readable form, and I look forward
to reading my copy. In the meantime, his summary conclusion that
ftp-able material is o.k. under ITAR seems weak to me because
the justification involves language like "published" and
"released". I would argue that if someone uploads software that
violates patents, etc. that act, which some might consider theft,
is not included in the notions of "published" or "released".
But that's a tentative conclusion--don't let's argue about it
until I've had a chance to read the ITAR.

My point is that perhaps the law requires one to have the right
to publish or release in order for the language quoted to apply.
This is not yet a firm conclusion on my part, but should be read
for now as an "uh, er," until I can read further. But I didn't want
Ed's "conclusion" to stand undisputed.

Putting it another way, if PGP infringes, then the author does not
have the legal right to declare it public domain, in that he doesn't
own the infringing portion. To see this clearly, suppose I upload a
copy of Microsoft Word and declare it public domain. Saying so doesn't
make it so, and Microsoft could not only prosecute me, but also anyone
with a copy.

Some have tried to argue that if they weren't the person uploading PGP
originally, they could download and use it with impunity. As one can
see from the above reduction ad absurdum, this cannot be or the only
person Microsoft could go after would be the original uploader, but
not those with copies of that upload. Worked examples include
successful piracy prosecutions in the courts.

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