FreeSWAN & US export controls

Dima Holodovich dimalinux at
Tue Dec 11 13:27:22 EST 2001

On Tuesday 11 December 2001 06:29 am, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
> Having a body of open source crypto software that is not entangled by
> any U.S. input is not a foolish idea.

Not when the body of software is critical for Linux and the
widespread use of IPSec.  If you want widespread adoption
of IPSec in Linux, it needs to be in Linus' kernel.  In order
for this to happen, it is necessary for Linus and other people
physically located in the United States need to be able to
to contribute.  Once Freeswan is in Linus' kernel, it will
receive greater contribution and testing from both *inside*
AND *outside* the United States.

IMO:  The current Freeswan policy *encourages* law makers to
change the laws.  Many companies have an invested interest
in Linux.  Those companies are willing to spend lots of
money on lawyers to protect Linux.  If IPSec is not part of
Linux and is not in widespread Linux use, those companies
will not have the need to defend us.  We'll have kept crypto
out of the hands of the people all on our own -- without
the government's help.

Do you really think that great programs like GNU Privacy
Guard are going to magically disappear if the US government
changes their regulations?  Can they magically be erased
from the net, just because some US contributions were

- Dima

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at

More information about the cryptography mailing list