More New Crypto Rules (UPDATED)

Carl Brewer writes "Looks like the US is finally opening the gates." ...with this announcement from the Department of Commerce. Well, if you believe the draft of the new rules, supposedly just about anything will be okay to publish, including source code. Me, I keep thinking about Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football, but maybe I'm just a cynic. Update: 01/13 13:40 by michael : The ACLU, EFF, and EPIC have put out a press release describing their reactions to the new rules. They still have plenty of problems with the U.S. export regulations.

Comments

Cool

[delmoi]

From the paper

3. Also in 740.13, to, in part, take into account the "open source" approach to software development, unrestricted encryption source code not subject to an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code can, without review, be released from "EI" controls and exported and reexported under License Exception TSU. Intellectual property protection (e.g., copyright, patent, or trademark) would not, by itself, be construed as an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code. To qualify, exporters must notify BXA of the Internet location (e.g., URL or Internet address) or provide a copy of the source code by the time of export. These notifications are only required for the initial export; there are no notification requirements for end-users subsequently using the source code. Notification can be made by e-mail to crypt@bxa.doc.gov.

Wow, thats certanly great, I hope this does pass.

"Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",

A point from OS

[1DeepThought]

You all seem to think that the United States is the only place anyone can get full strenght ecryption. I hate to tell you this but encryption work is being done all around the world. There are many full strenght products that were not developed in the United States. Even some that were are available elsewhere, ie PGP. The only people this is a major bonus for is US vendors not users around the world or at least not on the same scale.

Another example is Fortify. This puts full strenght encryption back into Netscape browsers. I realise there are other reasons such as being able to share code etc but for the main part the real benefactors are only US vendors. Im fine down here in Australia with the products that are already available to me and Im sure many others around the world are.

"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember