Re: Secure Drive 1.0 is here!

[Marc Horowitz <marc@security.ov.com>]

(sorry, ignore that last message)

Nathan Loofbourrow <loofbour@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:

   IMHO, the relevant section of the GPL, version 2 -- assuming that this
   is the version of the license Mike Ingle intends -- is as follows:

    >   7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
    >   ....

Um, keep reading:

      8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
    certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
    original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
    may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
    those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
    countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
    the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

If you read the GPL carefully, you will notice that it does not
require me to freely redistribute something I put under GPL to anyone.
What it does say is that once I give it to someone, I cannot restrict
what they do with it.  So, if someone wants to export the GPL DES
implementation I write, they can feel free.  But I have no
responsibility when the State Dept comes knocking on their door.

The GPL also requires that if I give you an executable, I must make
source available to you, or to anyone to whom you give the
executeable.  This could be a potential problem.  Programs which use
DES for authentication or integrity but not confidentiality have been
approved for export.  If such a program were distributed under
copyleft, it still couldn't be published outside the US, since the
GPL requires that if I give the executeable to a person (even in
Iraq), that I must give them source if they ask.  The underlying DES
source, since it could be used for confidentiality, would be
export-controlled.  Here, I just incorporate a limitation as in
section 8, restricting distribution to the US only.

So, kpj@sics.se, Mike Ingle's answer to you should be "I'm sorry, but
the Government won't let me give you anything."  This does not violate
any clause of the GPL.  If you think it does, please spell it out; I'm
unable to determine anything.

(Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer.)

		Marc