should be if the CRYPTO ENGINE is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

[Dave Bird]

In article <37B6C8C0.5A3ED59C@algroup.co.uk>, Ben Laurie
<ben@algroup.co.uk> writes
>>   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.
>
>The reason people use the term "public domain" is that this is the term
>used by Wassenaar.

 True, but Wassenaar itslef is distorting the issue:  export
restrictions are useless if a crypto system is "not-hidden".
There is no sane requirement for it to be "not-owned".   

 I guess we will just have to redefine the term (which normally
means "not-own") to mean "not hidden" in this case.

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