should be if the CRYPTO ENGINE is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

[Dave Bird]

In article <1.5.4.32.19990815123805.006c6394@192.168.0.65>, Donald
Ramsbottom <donald@ramsbottom.co.uk> writes
>>Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 13:36:19 +0100
>>To: Nicholas Bohm <nbohm@ernest.net>
>>From: Donald Ramsbottom <donald@ramsbottom.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: [fwd] DTI and Export Control (from:  Pete.Chown@skygate.co.uk)
>>
>>SNIP
>>>That is true only if the Wassenaar definition works by conferring freedom
>>>from control on whatever is publicly known despite some defined range of
>>>restrictions.  So if we replace the existing disregard of copyright
>>>restrictions (it's still public domain even with copyright restrictions)
>>>with a disregard of open source obligations (it's still public domain even
>>>with copyright restrictions and positive obligations, including those of
>>>the [defined] open source licence), then we have widened the public domain
>>>exception.


  I wish you would not use the words PUBLIC DOMAIN (or PUBLIC PROPERTY),
  the opposite of being   subject to controls or charges on copying;
  when you mean PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE (or PUBLICLY AVAILABLE),  
  the opposite of being a proprietary secret.  
  An Agatha Christie novel is public knowledge 
  but it is not public property for you to print & sell copies of it.

  This should further be limited to the cryptographic engine
  of the product.   

  I suggest that "there should be no restriction on the export of
  computer software containing cryptography if the cryptographic
  section of the product is public knowledge: that is, the
  encryption algorithm or combination of encryption algorithms
  which set the level of difficulty in decoding its cyphertexts
  has been openly published (and the computer code which rapidly
  executes it has been openly published or is easily deduced 
  from the abstract algorithm), whether or not subject to normal
  patent or copyright. Therefore any hostile power - which 
  might well ignore domestic patents or copyrights - could in 
  practice freely produce programs using those cryptographic algorithms, 
  and restricting export would do nothing to stop them."

  "Material is not public knowledge if it remains at the standard
  of a proprietary secret: i.e. it has not been legitimately published,
  and defending proprietary secrecy has not failed to such an extent
  that by default or in practice it has become public knowledge."
  

-- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

       happy as a clam at high tide -. <_" .-._.-.