Re: PGP is Product of the

[Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>]

To: cypherpunks@toad.com

J >A person in the group to which I refer is ``in the US'' by the 
J >commonly understood geographical definition of that phrase, but has as
J >a matter of conscience renounced any citizenship he may have had.  He
J >refuses on principle to affirm that he is a national person, and
J >therefore cannot use PGP 2.6 because such affirmation is supposed to be
J >required in order to obtain PGP 2.6, and may therefore be implicit in
J >each use of PGP 2.6. On the other hand, if he uses PGP 2.6ui, he risks
J >being accused of violating RSADSI's patent rights, because they will
J >take him to be "in the US", even though he has disaffiliated himself.
J >What version of PGP can such a person use?

Even though your friend is no longer a U.S. Citizen he is a "legal 
resident of the U.S." in that he could not be deported.  Residence is 
defined at law as equal to "domicile" and is under the legal control of 
the individual rather than the State.  "Domicile" is defined as "Actual 
physical presence plus intent to make the place one's home."  Once 
domicile is gained, it persists even if you are away until one acquires a 
new domicile by one's own action.

So he could use the MIT version of PGP.  When their lawyers came up with 
their spastic language about users having to be U.S. Citizens or Green 
Card holders they weren't trying to be exhaustive.  They were clearly 
trying to mirror the ITAR crypto regs.  Since your friend, while not a 
citizen, is not an alien he can possess crypto technology under ITAR and 
thus under the MIT license.

DCF
  

"If Nicole had had a Colt Mk IV Govt. Model, she'd be alive today."
--- WinQwk 2.0b#1165