From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 13:31:10 +0800
To: Tom Weinstein <deviant@pooh-corner.com>
Subject: Re: Netscape
Message-ID: <199607250317.UAA03425@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:39 PM 7/24/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote:
>The Deviant wrote:
>> 
>> I would have suggested even being as nice as "We'll do the same as MIT
>> does with PGP's distrobution, or RSA does with RSAREF (just so you'll
>> know, RSA's FTP basicly has a readme file that says "the files in
>> subdir of a dir thats -r+x to you, so if you're a citizen go to
>> dist/usaRANDOM_NUMBER_HERE", thats it).  Then make them explain why
>> Netscape should be any different.
>
>MIT reportedly has a letter stating that their systems is okay.  The
>state department wouldn't give us such a letter because they were
>"currently reevaluating their guidelines", or some such thing.  We
>convinced them to give us temporary permission for this system until
>they had finalized their new policy.


That still doesn't make since.

First, there were laws.  And we had to obey them.

Then, they added ITAR.  And they want us to obey it.

Finally, it seems, they're giving us "guidelines."  Not law, Not ITAR.

Next it's gonna be their their fondest desires, their preferences,and 
finally their whims.

What's wrong with this picture?    Do I detect an ass-kissing contest?

You should have told them that if they're "evaluating their guidelines" that 
means that NO future modifications to those guidelines is binding on you, 
since it is not part of ITAR and is CERTAINLY not part of the law.  You 
should have memorialized the contact with a lawyer's letter, and promptly 
posted the new version of your software with whatever version of the 
precautions  (MIT, RSA, or?) you felt most happy with.



Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com