[spacebanana7]

It seems Kaspersky can’t write a book or newspaper column with the contents of its source code and sell it in the US.

Without press freedom you don’t have free speech.

[cowthulhu]

Is that a method anyone has ever used to distribute paid, multi-GB software (or ever will for that matter)? I’m pretty sure Kaspersky is fully closed source anyways. This argument seems really roundabout and ineffective.

[spacebanana7]

Most commercial books and newspapers are effectively 'source available', which is closer to closed source than open source.

[RobotToaster]

Just print the hex dump, would probably be quite large unless you used microfiche.

[deutschepost]

The original code for PGP was distributed that way. Which was also banned in the US.

But yeah, it is a pretty bad comparison.

[charonn0]

When was PGP banned in the US?

[surfingdino]

It wasn't, its export was controlled https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[deutschepost]

My bad. It was export restricted and they were prosecuted for it. That’s the reason they had to publish it by book.

[google234123]

You believe a tech company can actually act freely under the Russian government? With thr FSB…

[fuoqi]

The problem is that the company in question can act freely from the US government. Should I remind you what triggered this animosity toward Kaspersky in the first place? https://www.wired.com/story/nsa-leak-kaspersky-labs/

[google234123]

The US is currently indirectly at war with Russia... I don't understand why you think it makes sense to let someone you are basically at war with operate on your computers