From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
To: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail•com>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Hosting of compiled bitcoin client
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:33:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTJeTObALu2CU6A8bujM_66wuBnOywnviVTa0Qfac+MWw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALxbBHW9wwe9yEUZp0pEzt+optFVmmRF27rBCYoLCeb8=p4iqg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Christian Decker
<decker.christian@gmail•com> wrote:
> Being an international team I'm pretty sure we can find someone who is in a
> more permissive country.
> Would someone knowledgeable point us to the specific laws, so that we can
> look it up in our respective jurisdiction?
The only restrictions I'm aware of are the EAR restrictions on the
export of cryptography.
These are generally not applicable to us for two reasons. One is that
we only use cryptography for authentication, which is explicitly
exempted:
http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/question2.htm
The other is that since Bernstein vs US
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States) there has
been absolutely no enforcement attempts against open source projects
as the precedent creating holding there makes it clear that these
regulations cannot inhibit the publication of source code.
Perhaps someone could make a little noise about binaries, but it would
be pure pretext: Especially since with the deterministic build process
we use anyone can produce bit-identical binaries (thus allowing builds
by untrusted third partities to be just as trustworthy as the official
ones).
> "more permissive country"
This made me laugh. It's hard to find places with better effective law
for most online and internet things. Many places copy the US's
statutes (either cargo culting, or as part of treaty compliance) but
do so without also copying our legislative history which is
/generally/ highly protective. For example, Australia has copied the
US munitions regulations exactly, but has no analog of Bernstein v. US
to limit the government's power.
Unfortunately sourceforce was rather vague about what regulations they
believe they're enforcing:
http://sourceforge.net/blog/clarifying-sourceforgenets-denial-of-site-access-for-certain-persons-in-accordance-with-us-law/
So unless someone has already done it, I'll get in touch with the EFF
and find out if they're aware of any particular precautions we should
take here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-14 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-14 20:52 Kyle Henderson
2012-10-14 22:02 ` Luke-Jr
2012-10-14 22:09 ` Christian Decker
2012-10-14 22:33 ` Gregory Maxwell [this message]
2012-10-14 22:49 ` Mike Hearn
2012-10-20 7:43 Mark Lister
2012-10-20 8:33 ` Wladimir
2012-10-20 14:19 ` Caleb James DeLisle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAAS2fgTJeTObALu2CU6A8bujM_66wuBnOywnviVTa0Qfac+MWw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=decker.christian@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox