> On 19 Apr 1999, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> > We still have two outstanding problems.
> > 
> > 1) We need to deal with what we're going to do about domestic/. I'm
> > currently in favor of just not distributing it until we come up with a 
> > better plan. This will prevent people from accidently checking it out, 
> > which right now would be a serious problem for anyone outside of the
> > U.S.
> 
> a) Change the name. "domestic" is an embarrasing USA-centric name.
>    We're NETbsd, as in NEThack - not USAbsd.

	This is of course assuming an individual would be embarassed about
	being a US citizen or that the word domestic is limited strictly to
	the US version of English. Considering the origin of a bulk of
	BSD4.4 code domestic isn't a surprising term but it is arbitrary and
	probably should be changed to something else.

	Hmmm, USAbsd! Maybe we should locale-ize NetBSD to the ISO country
	code followed by BSD! That way we could have the plain piece of
	paper of unspecified size/shape/color on an unspecified
	size/shape/color table mentioned in other messages!

> b) Scrap it, and replace it with "foreign" code. Not as if this is
>    exceedingly difficult - any 2-year-old who has seen a description
>    of DES can reverse the rounds to obtain decryption. It's around line
>    666 in my copy of the "exportable" version.
>    Or even better, do an MD5 based password scheme and forget unsafe DES.

	Maybe rename it to "locale-ization" or some such?

> c) What else is there in "domestic"? Kerberos maybe? Everyone has that
>    already as well, so add it to "foreign" servers and be done with it.
> 
> I would suggest carrying this stuff *only* on non-USA servers, in order
> to make a political statement about the whole stupidity of ITAR.
> 
	No disagreement here, other than the government of the US itself
	few people on this planet think much of the policy.

	Extending the thought train, if life elsewhere is ever found, do we
	think they would find *BSD embarassingly human/terran/earthian? B^).

	-Rob