"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> My recollection is that certain cryptography laws make hooks for crypto
> just as problematic as actual crypto code. We'd have to tread very
> carefully --- "general purpose" hooks are OK but anything narrowly
> tailored to encryption purposes would be a hazard.
Afaik the US was the only country with such a scheme with the ITAR export
regulations and that's long since gone, at least as it applied to crypto. The
current US export regulations don't have any of the stuff about hooks in them
and exempt free software from any crypto export licenses.
Doesn't stop some other country from coming up with the same idea of course
but we don't generally worry about what laws some hypothetical country might
introduce at some point in the future. That way lies madness.
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2008-01-28 21:34:18|
|Subject: Re: WIP: plpgsql source code obfuscation|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-28 21:21:44|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Proposed patch: synchronized_scanning GUC variable |