> 40-bit encryption isn't. Why not just put 40 bit as the default
> in the kernel, but require patching to get any higher.
Any encryption is illegal for export from the US without a license.
Licenses are routinely granted for export of binaries that only use
40-bit crypto, but AFAIK they aren't granted for source code at all
(barring special circumstances), even with 40-bit crypto.
The 9th Circuit court's ruling may eventually make it legal to export
source code with crypto in it, but that ruling doesn't apply to
binaries as far as I can tell. Besides, there's still a Supreme Court
appeal and then whatever new regs the government decides to put into
effect. If you want crypto for export, lobby your congresscritter
in support of one of the SAFE variants that are being proposed.
Even then, there are Linux hackers in other countries that have export
controls; it's unclear what would happen if the US regs were lifted.
(France historically has had even worse controls, though recent
indications are that they may lift them completely. Russia and
several Central and South American countries also have strong crypto
controls).
Followups on crypto legislation should probably go elsewhere.
> Thanks. Is there any concensus on which filesystem is "next" after
> ext2? There was lots of talk about the reiser fs for example...
Stephen Tweedie is working on journalling and other extensions to ext2
in what's being called ext3. ReiserFS is seperate but cool and will
probably go into 2.3.x as well.
--Sumner
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/