incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Request dev help: Info for required crypto export declaration
Date Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:12:36 GMT
We're already behind the 8-ball on having not done this when it was expected.  I suggest that
the established procedure be followed so that the ASF requirement is satisfied, the XML files
are updated, etc.  

Then we can worry about whether there needs to be some expansion of scope or other adjustment.

Perhaps legal-discuss@ or general-incubator is a place to take that additional concern?

 - Dennis

PS: I suspect that notices in the released implementations would be appropriate, considering
responsibilities that users of the software may also have in the jurisdiction where usage
is occuring.  But I think that we need to acquit ourselves of the fact that the various OO.o
employment of cryptographic methodologies are now in source-code form on the Apache SVN.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 08:01
Subject: Re: Request dev help: Info for required crypto export declaration

Starting fresh.  The more I look into this the more I'm starting to
think that the Apache export control instructions [1] are leading us
in the wrong direction.

>From what I've been able to determine, the classification code comes
not only from the strength of the encryption, but also the use of the
software.  For example, strong encryption (based on key length) might
end up in different classifications depending on whether it is a
general purpose encryption library, a "mass market" product, a server
product, etc.  It is not just about key length.

The Apache instructions seem to say that all paths lead to 5D002.
Maybe this is true for strong encryption in the typical Apache
developer libraries or server-side products.  But is
not your typical Apache product, is it?

If you look at how commercial derivatives of are
treated, such as IBM Lotus Symphony or LibreOffice Novell Edition, you
see that they are classified as 5D992, not 5D002.  But I do not see
5D992 mentioned at all on the Apache page on handling cryptography.
Until we better understand that discrepancy, I don't think we should
blindly follow the 5D002 route.

Is there anyone at Apache who really understands these things in a
more general way, e.g., understands the implications of "mass market"



View raw message