Return-Path: Return-Path: owner-openssl-dev@openssl.org Received: from opensource.ee.ethz.ch (opensource-01.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.7.153]) by brev.stacken.kth.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24324 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:01:56 +0100 (MET) Received: by en5.engelschall.com (Sendmail 8.9.2) for openssl-dev-L id IAA07341; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:41:01 +0100 (MET) Received: by en5.engelschall.com (Sendmail 8.9.2) via SMTP for from old.law.columbia.edu id IAA07335; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:40:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from eben by old.law.columbia.edu with local id 12VUq1-000371-00; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:36:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ulf_M=F6ller?= Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org, Ben Laurie , rms@gnu.org, members@apache.org, php-dev@lists.php.net Subject: Re: [Eben Moglen ] Re: US crypto export restrictionsand GNU (fwd) In-Reply-To: Ulf Möller's message of Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:41:40 +0100 <20000316014140.A604@rho> References: <38CDFEEC.9C9159BD@algroup.co.uk> <200003150456.VAA29971@aztec.santafe.edu> <38CFC136.8B8873FE@algroup.co.uk> <20000316014140.A604@rho> From: Eben Moglen Message-Id: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:36:57 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by opensource.ee.ethz.ch id IAA07337 Sender: owner-openssl-dev@openssl.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: openssl-dev@openssl.org X-Sender: Eben Moglen X-List-Manager: OpenSSL Majordomo [version 1.94.4] X-List-Name: openssl-dev On Thu, 16 March 2000, Ulf Möller wrote: Then what is the proper understanding of "Foreign products developed with or incorporating U.S.-origin encryption source code, components or toolkits remain subject to the EAR" (EAR being the Export Administration Regulations), which is a direct quote from the relevant American law? Well, as I warned everyone, this is an exercise in conjugation of the conditional future subjunctive, but here goes: "Reexport," under the regs, means movement from one "foreign" country to another of material that was originally "in" the US. [It is helpful in all these matters to remember that the regs primarily apply to physical objects that cannot be infinitely duplicated with no marginal cost; software is a type of commodity 'shoehorned' into regulations designed with, inter alia, missile guidance systems in mind.] Code that was once "in" the US and exported to, say, Germany, is still subject to the EARs when it is subsequently sent from Germany to, say, Iraq. That means, under both the old and new forms of the regs, that someone who exported crypto to Germany with a license could be held responsible if the licensed technology was reexported from Germany to Iraq. This was supposed to make US exporters careful about who in Germany they sent technology to, lest it wind up in Iraq or other bad places. (Now that no license is necessary to send crypto to Germany, it would be hard to found a prosecution for violation of the EARs on the reexport to Iraq, but it is theoretically possible.) Note, however, that as it says in the quotation from 772 below, nothing can be reexported that wasn't originally subject to the EARs, and nothing that wasn't ever in the US can be subject to EAR. That's the point of the word "remains" in the quotation above. There is still no "infection" of material that was never "in" the US to begin with. The US-produced components of a mixed product can be subject to the EARs even though the mixed product was assembled in Germany, as Ulf Muller points out, and as I said in my previous message, but the German-produced components of the mixed product are not subject to EAR, and may be freely exported anywhere German law permits, and may be freely imported to the US as far as US law is concerned. Let's bring ourselves to the ultimate issue: Where does this leave us with respect to the wisdom of using US-produced components in crypto-containing free software assembled outside the US? US-produced components can be subject to EARs, which means that at the present time they may be freely exported to all but seven countries (none of which currently permits free access to the network to its own citizens), so long as a copy of the source code is available to the Bureau of Export Administration, which acts as a surrogate for NSA. All free software fulfills this criterion by definition, although we do have to nominate an official source-availability URL, as I previously mentioned. In the worst case analysis, components exported now might subsequently become non-exportable in the event that regulations in the US become more restrictive. No one would be subject to prosecution or interference as a result of export occurring before the change in regulations (that's a matter of constitutional law in the US), but all subsequent development of those components would then have to occur somewhere other than here. No code not originally developed in the US would be subject to this tightened regulatory environment, unless such code were "in" the US, in which case the particular copy that was "in" the US wouldn't be able to leave again--a restriction which makes no difference. I am grateful to Ulf Muller for his question. It reminds all of us that insanity is easier to mitigate than it is to cure, and creates a hope that the lawyers who have invested years in comprehending the US export control rules may be able to get paid for their efforts for a few more minutes. (I am not paid for my efforts, but that's because I am the victim of a different form of insanity.) Nonetheless, I don't want to let people's natural and justifiable caution lead them astray: as someone who has dealt with the regs since my initial defense of Phil Zimmerman in 1991-94, I am here to tell you that the war is over. For all practical purposes the US spooks have surrendered, and we can go about our business without worrying that our products will be sequestered or that their authors will be prosecuted for violation of US law. Best regards to all. -- Eben Moglen voice: 212-854-8382 Professor of Law & Legal History fax: 212-854-7946 moglen@ Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027 columbia.edu General Counsel, Free Software Foundation http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:772.wais] Part 772 - Definitions of Terms Export Administration Regulations January 2000 Definitions of Terms Part 772-page The following are definitions of terms as used in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Reexport. "Reexport" means an actual shipment or transmission of items subject to the EAR from one foreign country to another foreign country. For purposes of the EAR, the export or reexport of items subject to the EAR that will transit through a country or countries, or be transshipped in a country or countries to a new country, or are intended for reexport to the new country, are deemed to be exports to the new country. (See §734.2(b)of the EAR.) In addition, for purposes of satellites controlled by the Department of Commerce, the term "reexport" also includes the transfer of registration of a satellite or operational control over a satellite from a party resident in one country to a party resident in another country. >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14ja00-20] Sec. 740.13 Technology and software--unrestricted (TSU) (e) Unrestricted encryption source code. (1) Encryption source code controlled under 5D002, which would be considered publicly available under Sec. 734.3(b)(3) and which is not subject to an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed with the source code, is released from ``EI'' controls and may be exported or reexported without review under License Exception TSU, provided you have submitted written notification to BXA of the Internet location (e.g., URL or Internet address) or a copy of the source code by the time of export. Submit the notification to BXA and send a copy to ENC Encryption Request Coordinator (see Sec. 740.17(g)(5) for mailing addresses). Intellectual property protection (e.g., copyright, patent or trademark) will not, by itself, be construed as an express agreement for the payment of a licensing fee or royalty for commercial production or sale of any product developed using the source code. (2) You may not knowingly export or reexport source code or products developed with this source code to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majordomo@openssl.org