From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 21:36:55 PST
To: m5@dev.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Subject: Re: Solution for US/Foreign Software?
Message-ID: <m0tNYMq-0008zoC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:28 PM 12/6/95 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Bill Stewart writes:
> > I had interpreted the suggestion differently - rather than a system with 
> > user-accessible crypto hooks, the manufacturer could ship a binary patch
> > upgrade for US customers to install.  The internal design would presumably
> > have crypto hooks (i.e. subroutine calls); they can't ban that.
>
>No, they can't *ban* it, but there's no reason to suspect that they
>won't revoke the export license after the scheme becomes clear.  And
>of course the patch itself would not be exportable.  If there's a
>"wink wink nudge nudge" implication that the patch would make its way
>overseas, I don't understand why that's really any more likely than
>the US-only version getting out.

It isn't that it's "more" likely.  It's probably JUST AS likely.  But
remember, the goal is to allow the US company to actually MAKE MONEY, not to
bootleg its products.  The system I've described would be intended to allow
a manufacturer to continue to sell its exportable product legally.