In the case of source code vs. assembly vs. machine language, I would expect that the court wouldn't have difficulty discriminating between the three and upholding the right to export source code and not the other two. The ruling stated: "Source code is not meant solely for the computer, but is rather written in a language intended also for human analysis and understanding." If I were prosecuting the case for the state, I would get expert witnesses to testify that assembly and binary are not legible and therefore not "intended...for human analysis and understanding" and therefore there is no prior restraint on the free exchange of ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of source code vs. assembly vs. machine language, I would expect that the court wouldn't have difficulty discriminating between the three and upholding the right to export source code and not the other two. The ruling stated: "Source code is not meant solely for the computer, but is rather written in a language intended also for human analysis and understanding." If I were prosecuting the case for the state, I would get expert witnesses to testify that assembly and binary are not legible and therefore not "intended ...for human analysis and understanding" and therefore there is no prior restraint on the free exchange of ideas.