On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 12:28:07PM -0500, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> 
> I hope you're not suggesting that I intend to deceive people, because
> I really don't.

Not at all.

> What I still don't understand is how, if all the legalities have
> somehow remained the same, OpenBSD can make OpenSSH part of the
> default 2.6 install (as they claim to) without causing a bunch of
> people to break the law.

They can't.  But as far as I can tell, they don't really care.

They can't legally re-export cryptographic code that was originally
from the U.S. from Canada, either (despite the advice they evidently
got from a law student someone talked to in a bar!), and the people
(some of them U.S. government employees and contractors, yet!) who 
committed sundry crypto code to OpenBSD from the U.S. knowing full well 
it'd be exported were playing with fire, too.  They don't seem to care
about any of this, either, and if one points it out to them one is
usually in line for a great deal of "INFIDEL!  THE EMPEROR IS WEARING
*LOVELY* AND *STYLISH* CLOTHES!" type flamage.  Well, whatever.

Now, please note that I am certainly _not_ a lawyer, and I am not
giving you (or anyone else) legal advice.  But I have talked to
several lawyers about many of the specific points we've covered in
this discussion, as have other NetBSD developers.  So perhaps this
will give you some perspective on why we don't do some of the things
OpenBSD does, though the world might be a nicer place if we were
free to.

-- 
Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com
	"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"