RE: ITAR legal status (was RE: Non-US Mirror System)

["Alejandro Lopez-Valencia" <dradul at etb dot net dot co>]

CG Faylor broke the silence of shunyata on Monday, February 23, 2004
10:14 AM, and uttered:

> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:26:09AM -0500, Alejandro Lopez-Valencia
> wrote:
>> CG Faylor scribbled on Monday, February 23, 2004 9:19 AM:
>>> I am going to contact our legal staff about gnupg.
>>
>> The legal status of openssh, openssl, libcrypt and whatnot with
>> respect to present-day US ITAR regulations need to be checked in for
>> legal issues as well (this would break a helluva number of packages,
>> btw).
>
> We had to get legal approval for those before we included them in the
> original cygwin net distribution.

Glad to know that as it makes sense of the on-going events. May I
suggest that someone includes something in the FAQ on the lines of:

"Q: How come  we distribute several encryption packages with Cygwin?"

"A: Because we asked legal permission to the US federal goverment under
the present US ITAR legal regulations. The addition of new encryption
packages is not welcome, after the past ordeals. The approved packages
to date are openssh, openssl, libcrypto..."

Or whatever. It could make things clearer than they now stand, and
perhaps nip all this nonsense in the bud.

> cgf

Alejo "I'm-not-the-only-one-needing-a-vacation"