From: "geeman@best.com" <geeman@best.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Subject: Re: exporting signatures only/CAPI (was Re: Why not PGP?)
In-Reply-To: <199610121908.OAA19871@homeport.org>
Message-ID: <32674B59.62C4@best.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>

That means you would have to take your CAPI implementation and
documentation of it, and distribute it freely in some form (source?)
presumably on the 'net.

Which could be a violation of the terms you get the
signature under.

<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>



Gary Howland wrote:
> 
> Ian Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > I remember hearing (if my memory is correct, from the mouth of a Microsoft
> > employee at Crypto '96) that when Microsoft signs a module, they are certifying
> > that they saw a signed sheet of paper swearing that either
> > (1) you won't export the software, or
> > (2) you have received an appropriate export license.
> >
> > AFAIK, they don't even read the code.
> 
> Really?  This implies they would have no objections to signing freely
> available code, which as we all know will eventually make its way
> overseas (indeed, it may have originated there).
> 
> Gary
> --
> "Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better
> than what we have now."  -- Unknown.