16 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
At 04:18 PM 7/15/96 -0700, sameer wrote: > Not like that's tough to figure out. Congrats. It's cool to >actually be able to connect to my webserver using real encryption. >Glad the lawyers don't think Barksdale is going to jail anymore. I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? DCF
Duncan Frissell wrote: > > I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? I have heard no reports of it leaking overseas. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com
> From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com> > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:56:51 -0700 > > Duncan Frissell wrote: > > > > I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? > > I have heard no reports of it leaking overseas. Have you heard any reports of anyone successfully downloading it period? Netscape always times out in the middle of a download. I think the server is so overloaded that it's actually impossible to download the software. I sure wish there were an ftp site overseas somewhere, then I could actually get the damned thing.
Yap Remailer <remailer@yap.pactitle.com> writes: >Have you heard any reports of anyone successfully downloading it >period? Netscape always times out in the middle of a download. I >think the server is so overloaded that it's actually impossible to >download the software. Yes, I successfully d/l'ed the Sun version. I think it was about 7MB and took forever, but it unpacked and ran cleanly with no glitches whatever. It's a temporary version -- it'll expire on about 17 Sep... which is fine for me, since I didn't want to wait until our Purchasing dept got through with their song and dance. Jim Gillogly Hevensday, 25 Afterlithe S.R. 1996, 02:12
Yap Remailer wrote: > > Have you heard any reports of anyone successfully downloading it > period? Netscape always times out in the middle of a download. I > think the server is so overloaded that it's actually impossible to > download the software. > > I sure wish there were an ftp site overseas somewhere, then I could > actually get the damned thing. Yes. We've had a few thousand people download it. Unfortunately, we only have one machine serving downloads right now, and it tends to melt down a couple times a day. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com
At 3:36 AM -0700 7/16/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >At 04:18 PM 7/15/96 -0700, sameer wrote: > >> Not like that's tough to figure out. Congrats. It's cool to >>actually be able to connect to my webserver using real encryption. >>Glad the lawyers don't think Barksdale is going to jail anymore. > >I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law. David
David Sternlight writes: > >I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? > > It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the > plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law. Yes, just like its a crime to smoke grass, or have sex with someone you aren't married to in half the states in the union. Of course, we all know that the truth is that other than bluenose fools like David Sternlight, most people in society have accepted that the government is just plain stupid and happily go on doing what they would do anyway. David serves, however, as a useful reminder of the fact that there are people out there who were so badly conditioned in childhood that they are unable to disagree with authority no matter how badly they would like to. I suspect that if a sufficiently highly placed government official told David to strip naked and have sex with a dog in public and phrased it as an order, he would do it, even though he would find the act repugnant. Luckily, after the revolution, the private sector will open centers to help people like David get over their inability to function without authority figures telling them what to do. Since the private sector has high incentives not to waste money, unlike government sponsored programs we can expect David and others like him to eventually become useful members of society. Perry
At 8:26 AM -0700 7/18/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >David Sternlight writes: >> >I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? >> >> It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the >> plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law. > >Yes, just like its a crime to smoke grass, or have sex with someone >you aren't married to in half the states in the union. Of course, we >all know that the truth is that other than bluenose fools like David >Sternlight, most people in society have accepted that the government >is just plain stupid and happily go on doing what they would do >anyway. > >David serves, however, as a useful reminder of the fact that there are >people out there who were so badly conditioned in childhood that they >are unable to disagree with authority no matter how badly they would >like to. I suspect that if a sufficiently highly placed government >official told David to strip naked and have sex with a dog in public >and phrased it as an order, he would do it, even though he would find >the act repugnant. > >Luckily, after the revolution, the private sector will open centers to >help people like David get over their inability to function without >authority figures telling them what to do. Since the private sector >has high incentives not to waste money, unlike government sponsored >programs we can expect David and others like him to eventually become >useful members of society. > Your contumely arises from your ignorance in that you are clearly unfamiliar with my consistent position on the Digital Telephony Act and many other issues. Not everyone who disagrees with you on some issues is a fool or a knave, and to say so suggests the need for a mirror. David
On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
> At 3:36 AM -0700 7/16/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> >At 04:18 PM 7/15/96 -0700, sameer wrote:
> >> Not like that's tough to figure out. Congrats. It's cool to
> >>actually be able to connect to my webserver using real encryption.
> >>Glad the lawyers don't think Barksdale is going to jail anymore.
> >I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas?
> It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the
> plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law.
No they don't. If they are French, Russian, English, Greek, etc. They
_may_ be violating their countries laws, but they are not necessarily
violating ours.
Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.comAt 10:51 PM -0700 7/17/96, snow wrote: >On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote: >> At 3:36 AM -0700 7/16/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >> >At 04:18 PM 7/15/96 -0700, sameer wrote: >> >> Not like that's tough to figure out. Congrats. It's cool to >> >>actually be able to connect to my webserver using real encryption. >> >>Glad the lawyers don't think Barksdale is going to jail anymore. >> >I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? >> It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the >> plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law. > > No they don't. If they are French, Russian, English, Greek, etc. They > _may_ be violating their countries laws, but they are not necessarily >violating ours. That is only true if they find a way to crack Netscape's software distribution security from overseas, or somehow found a user machine with the software on it and cracked IT. IF the thing leaks it is much more likely because someone on our side of the border was complicit. Do I _think_ it will stay on this side of the border? Of course not. But any leaked copies will be illicit and won't be in the "mass" market of non-US Netscape versions. I think the government realizes this and the safeguards are designed to deal with the mass of overseas users, not the odd clever hacker and his friends. David
David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes:
> >> It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the
> >> plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law.
> >
> > No they don't. If they are French, Russian, English, Greek, etc. They
> > _may_ be violating their countries laws, but they are not necessarily
> >violating ours.
>
> That is only true if they find a way to crack Netscape's software
> distribution security from overseas, or somehow found a user machine with
> the software on it and cracked IT. IF the thing leaks it is much more
> likely because someone on our side of the border was complicit.
I'm not sure that is necesarily true. The checks are normally very
flimsy, and near trivial for anyone to break. I don't think anyone
knows _who_ exports new versions of PGP etc, so I'm not saying you're
wrong either, only saying: we have no way of knowing.
> Do I _think_ it will stay on this side of the border? Of course not. But
> any leaked copies will be illicit and won't be in the "mass" market of
> non-US Netscape versions.
Well, I understand some of the previous (commercial) 128 bit versions
of Netscape leaked, and I presume they were not available from all the
usual ftp sites because they were commercial.
Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once
it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc.
(the US version of PGP is on various non-US ftp sites, I don't see any
reason why freely distributable netscape binaries should be
different).
Adam
--
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)Adam Back wrote: > Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once > it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc. Just a minor nit. No netscape software is freely distributable. The license agreement does not allow people who download it to redistribute it. --Jeff -- Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist Netscape Communication Corporation jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw Any opinions expressed above are mine.
Jeff Weinstein <jsw@netscape.com> writes:
> Adam Back wrote:
> > Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once
> > it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc.
>
> Just a minor nit. No netscape software is freely distributable.
> The license agreement does not allow people who download it
> to redistribute it.
Oh dear! So I am incorrect... but wait, what about people like
sunsite northern europe (Imperial College London: ftp.doc.ic.ac.uk)
who already have a license to be a Netscape mirror site. Would this
license allow them to distribute this latest 128 bit netscape beta
(were it to leak)?
Adam
--
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)Jeff Weinstein writes: : Adam Back wrote: : > Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once : > it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc. : : Just a minor nit. No netscape software is freely distributable. : The license agreement does not allow people who download it : to redistribute it. But--to nitpick at the nit--nothing in the license agreement that I can find forbids one from distributing it to others who are not foreign persons and are not outside the United States. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
At 4:57 AM -0700 7/19/96, Peter D. Junger wrote: >Jeff Weinstein writes: > >: Adam Back wrote: >: > Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once >: > it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc. >: >: Just a minor nit. No netscape software is freely distributable. >: The license agreement does not allow people who download it >: to redistribute it. > >But--to nitpick at the nit--nothing in the license agreement that I >can find forbids one from distributing it to others who are not >foreign persons and are not outside the United States. It's a copyright work. There is no need to be explicit--redistribution of copyright intellectual property (except for fair use excerpts) is an infringement without explicit permission of the copyright owner, isn't it? Next you'll be telling us that one can Xerox best-sellers without permission and send them to Patagonia unless there's an explicit sale prohibition against it. Tthe license terms would have to allow redistribution explicitly for any flavor of it to be non-infringing--they don't have to prohibit some flavors specifically, yes? David
At 2:11 PM -0700 7/18/96, Adam Back wrote: >Presumably as this latest netscape beta is freely distributable, once >it's out it will be on ftp.unimi.dsi.it, ftp.ox.ac.uk, etc, etc. Not at all. That would be software piracy--and they'd stand the same chance of going to jail they would if they had Lotus Notes or Microsoft Word on such sites, crypto or no. David