we've brought this up many times on linux-devel, and in fact there *is* a maintained set of 'crypto' patches for the kernel which are maintained overseas. Linus doesn't want to incorporate it into the main code base because of the huge hassle it would cause every single person who mirrors the kernel. And, of course, the main distribution site has been in the US for quite some time (kernel.org and it's predecessors) which complicates things quite a bit.
The hooks have to be specifically for cryptography in order to be illegal. People get around this by providing general "module" interfaces which can be used for lots of things.... including crypto. Making it crypto specific is a no-no, as far as I know.
Having said this, there are some well-known exceptions: microsoft's crypto apis and sun's java library apis, for example. I don't know if they got a specific license from the gov't, or if the law was loosened. I rather suspect they got a license.
The ITAR prohibits the export of 'crypto-enabled' software. So even writing code with hooks is disallowed. There's been a lot of discussion about doing away with this particular bit of draconia, but I believe it's still on the books.
Um, really? I made the key myself, and signed it myself. Do you have a particular reason not to trust me?;-)
More likely, you've set security preferences not to trust sites who haven't shelled out the big bucks for a verisign certificate. When I do that will be the day I burn in hell. Sorry.
So when does the TV shockumentary about a 10-year old kid using my secure filter bypass to download porn go on the air? And what will the Aussies do about it?
I'd personally love to be banned. It would be such a charming thing to tell guests...
(gosh, the one time I don't hit 'preview' before 'submit' i make a huge typo. please substitute 'relevant' for 'revelant' above. My software does not perform acts of revelation... yet.)
I yelled about it, the cypherpunks ranted about it, everyone with an interest in privacy and politics mourned on the day it was passed. I wrote revelant software and wrote to cypherpunks-australia offering to help find US proxies for every citizen in.au to use. We were making noise.... you just weren't listening, that's all.
Somebody write some open source filtering software (with an obvious '#define ENABLE_FILTER' to #undef) and lobby hard to get it 'approved' by the brain-dead committee so we can download the sources, undefine the flag, and claim we're running 'approved filtering software'.
(Yes, I'm beating my own drum here, but I think it's a valid, if suboptimal, solution. And I'm going to need lots of mirrors if every single enlightened person in.au starts hitting my machine.)
See https://lm.lcs.mit.edu. I can't help but think that solutions are possible via technical means. Technology's problems are often technology's to fix.
A standard way of naming the copies is fine. That way no one will get confused into buying something they didn't mean to. If they wanted Red Hat linux with support and hand-holding, or Red Hat linux to support the company, they won't get suckered into accidentally buying Red Hat linux from some guy making a quick buck. If they want the cheap version, they'll look for "blue hat" linux or some such. As long as they can tell the difference, they'll get what they want.
Just look at his site. He's obviously trying to take advantage of folks that don't know Red Hat this from Red Hat that. To the point of *auctioning* off the CDs that cost him, what, 85 cents for media? And cloaking his product self-righteously in "RedHat GPL" ticks me off, too. What he's doing has very very little to do with the GPL, and quite a lot to do with "profiteering".
Slashdot Mirror
we've brought this up many times on linux-devel, and in fact there *is* a maintained set of 'crypto' patches for the kernel which are maintained overseas. Linus doesn't want to incorporate it into the main code base because of the huge hassle it would cause every single person who mirrors the kernel. And, of course, the main distribution site has been in the US for quite some time (kernel.org and it's predecessors) which complicates things quite a bit.
The hooks have to be specifically for cryptography in order to be illegal. People get around this by providing general "module" interfaces which can be used for lots of things.... including crypto. Making it crypto specific is a no-no, as far as I know.
Having said this, there are some well-known exceptions: microsoft's crypto apis and sun's java library apis, for example. I don't know if they got a specific license from the gov't, or if the law was loosened. I rather suspect they got a license.
The ITAR prohibits the export of 'crypto-enabled' software. So even writing code with hooks is disallowed. There's been a lot of discussion about doing away with this particular bit of draconia, but I believe it's still on the books.
Well, I'm starting to get a good number of mirror offers. In a month, who knows?
No, chaining works.
Yes, indeed. The day I pay money to Verisign is the day I drop dead.
Thanks for asking.
Yes. My software is already GPLed. Write me and I'll send you a copy of it.
More likely, you've set security preferences not to trust sites who haven't shelled out the big bucks for a verisign certificate. When I do that will be the day I burn in hell. Sorry.
I'd personally love to be banned. It would be such a charming thing to tell guests...
I believe you are free to make the ISP server-filter for you. Then you can just bypass the filter.
(gosh, the one time I don't hit 'preview' before 'submit' i make a huge typo. please substitute 'relevant' for 'revelant' above. My software does not perform acts of revelation... yet.)
I yelled about it, the cypherpunks ranted about it, everyone with an interest in privacy and politics mourned on the day it was passed. I wrote revelant software and wrote to cypherpunks-australia offering to help find US proxies for every citizen in .au to use. We were making noise.... you just weren't listening, that's all.
Somebody write some open source filtering software (with an obvious '#define ENABLE_FILTER' to #undef) and lobby hard to get it 'approved' by the brain-dead committee so we can download the sources, undefine the flag, and claim we're running 'approved filtering software'.
(Yes, I'm beating my own drum here, but I think it's a valid, if suboptimal, solution. And I'm going to need lots of mirrors if every single enlightened person in .au starts hitting my machine.)
See https://lm.lcs.mit.edu. I can't help but think that solutions are possible via technical means. Technology's problems are often technology's to fix.
Nah, just make them server-side filter you, and
then use this.
...and made as much noise as I could.
Moreover, I provided this.
Secure proxies (https://lm.lcs.mit.edu).
A standard way of naming the copies is fine. That way no one will get confused into buying something they didn't mean to. If they wanted Red Hat linux with support and hand-holding, or Red Hat linux to support the company, they won't get suckered into accidentally buying Red Hat linux from some guy making a quick buck. If they want the cheap version, they'll look for "blue hat" linux or some such. As long as they can tell the difference, they'll get what they want.
And of course they include the complete political writings of Richard Stallman and the FSF...
;-)
Red Hat hasn't a thing to do with this.
It's all about Amazon.com, and I think they're doing the right thing.
The Sands guy's a creep.
Gosh, the Sands guy's a real creep, ain't he?
Wrapping his profiteering in the "GPL" banner makes me wanna puke.
Take a gander at http://bestlinux.tf/.
Just look at his site. He's obviously trying to take advantage of folks that don't know Red Hat this from Red Hat that. To the point of *auctioning* off the CDs that cost him, what, 85 cents for media? And cloaking his product self-righteously in "RedHat GPL" ticks me off, too. What he's doing has very very little to do with the GPL, and quite a lot to do with "profiteering".
Um, physical locks are probably (if anything) *easier* to crack. Unless you're willing to spend *big* bucks and pour a *lot* of concrete.