SourceForge Clarifies Denial of Site Access

Recently there were some complaints from certain users outside the US stating that they were no longer able to access SourceForge.net. SF.net (who shares a corporate overlord with Slashdot) has outlined the reasons for these bans, and until someone with sufficient power to alter US law or the lists governing who is allowed to access what data from where, there is unlikely to be a change in these bans. It is worth noting that SF.net is not alone in these difficulties, as the same problems have been reported from other repositories, like Google Code. "As one of the first companies to promote the adoption and distribution of free and open source software, and one that still puts open source at the center of its corporate ideals, restrictions on the free flow of information rub us the wrong way. However, in addition to participating in the open source community, we also live in the real world, and are governed by the laws of the country in which we are located. Our need to follow those laws supersedes any wishes we might have to make our community as inclusive as possible. The possible penalties for violating these restrictions include fines and imprisonment. Other hosting companies based in the US have similar legal and technical restrictions in place."

Comments

Failure of thought

[Antidamage]

If this rubs SF.net the wrong way so much, why do they continue to operate in the US? Why is SF.net specifically reinforcing their position in the US by adhering to its exclusion of US enemies? Doesn't this make US enemies SF.net enemies?

To follow hatred, you must be blind. Being blind relieves you from following the natural train of thought outlined above. I wonder which step SF.net stopped thinking at. It was probably the "there's more twinkies in the US" stage.

Re:Failure of thought

[NeoSkandranon]

The reality of the world is that picking up and moving a company overseas (from a US perspective at least) is not easy, nor cheap.

Re:Failure of thought

[qoncept]

Dollars and cents. It's easy to sit back and say SF should stand up for their ideals, but the cost to move their operations along with the risk probably (er, apparently) aren't worth it. It's not a great idea to use a multi million dollar asset as a pawn to reinforce your principles. Especially when it's publicly traded.

Re:Failure of thought

[achbed]

Because they are based in the US, and they are owned by a company that is based in the US. US export laws apply to both the parent company as well as the child, and sanctions for violating the export laws are severe. Relocating to another country is a possibility, but they would have to start over. The company taking assets (or assets under corporate supervision) to another country would also fall under the same law. So, there's the chicken and the egg problem. Also, most of the countries on the US list are also on similar lists in the rest of the world due to treaties, etc. I'm sure there are some countries out there that would be happy to have you host there and export without limitation (and possibly break copyright laws too). But as the Pirate Bay is finding, those places are fewer and fewer these days.

Oh, and if you're planning on staying in the US and not moving to the country you host in, you're still under the US export laws, as your location is in their jurisdiction. Even if you can find a lawyer to make the argument, plan on spending a ton of money on the defense. And if you have that much money to start with, you wouldn't be reading this :)

Re:Failure of thought

[daveime]

Moving a company overseas might be difficult, moving a server is a piece of piss and a few hours work with FTP and getting your DNS fixed.

Re:Failure of thought

[girlintraining]

If this rubs SF.net the wrong way so much, why do they continue to operate in the US?

Because the US is where most of the internet infrastructure sits, and most of the traffic is. It's cheap to locate your servers here -- and more expensive to decentralize or put them elsewhere. It's not political -- it's technical.

Re:Failure of thought

[Antidamage]

What exactly is the point of ideals if you don't stand up for them?

At least with SF.net we know it's a popularity contest. Make enough noise and they'll do something about it.

Re:Failure of thought

[achbed]

I hope you're not living in the US, nor in a treaty signatory. Hosting location does not equal legal liability freedom.

Re:Failure of thought

[ElSupreme]

Well according to them the US is limiting their ability to 'to make our community as inclusive as possible'. So that would seem that the US is not a 'country that affords them the gretest opportunity to succeed.'

I realize it isn't just as simple as moving to Finland. But what you said makes less sense.

Re:Failure of thought

[Antidamage]

Yeah, I was looking for a better word than hatred but it does outline one of the main causes of bad international relations. Plus you're a douchesock.

Re:Failure of thought

[fibrewire]

Peer 2 Peer traffic gets by this obstacle for the insta-solution.

But for the long term, if somecorp created a not-for-profit internet protected under the same laws as embassy or chancery, to stop the flow of data only if both countries are in agreement. Then that would stop say, a corporation! from stopping the flow of data as opposed to a government - and if say, China! wanted to stop the flow of data from the US to China or vice-versa, then they would need to come to an agreement, else there would be an international incident.

I don't know, the logic is present - but fitting it into actuality is not one of my strong points.

Re:Failure of thought

[wizardforce]

It rubs pretty much everyone at Slashdot the wrong way so why don't we all chip in to create a mirror site or something based outside the US?

Re:Failure of thought

[CannonballHead]

They look good on paper. And powerpoint presentations.

Re:Failure of thought

[cetialphav]

Moving your entire company to another country is not the only way to stick up for your ideals. Another way is to fight to change the system. Many people with far less power than the sf.net overlords have been able to do this and succeed.

Not everyone has the power to simply pick up their ball and run away every time they run into things they don't like. Sometimes you have to compromise and sometimes you have to try to work the system to improve it.

Re:Failure of thought

[PopeRatzo]

Hosting location does not equal legal liability freedom.

Couldn't SF.net just incorporate in a country other than the US, using non-US citizens as the principals in the incorporation? Then they wouldn't have to deny access to people just because the US says they should.

That's one of the ways lots of US corporate "citizens" manage to avoid US laws.

Re:Failure of thought

[FooAtWFU]

What's the point of ideals if you ignore the constraints of reality so much that you never actually get to implement them? Balance, sir!

Perhaps there are steps which they can take to work around these problems that they have not considered and ought to. The effective way to introduce them is something more like politely saying "SourceForge should consider [moving their servers to Uzbekistan]" and not at all like calling them a bunch of fat twinkie-obsessed lard-asses because they haven't relocated there yet. If they're so lazy and the OP and his ideas are so awesome, perhaps he can coordinate a new SourceForge-y site.

Re:Failure of thought

[QBasicer]

Since when was there a sea between the US and Canada?

Re:Failure of thought

[O('_')O_Bush]

That doesn't exempt you from the laws of the country where your company is located.

Re:Failure of thought

[sopssa]

There is not a single land without any restrictions, because every country has laws. However, there are countries that don't have trade embargo's or restrictions in distribution of software with cryptography (both which probably effected SF). In addition some countries value privacy and freedom of speech a lot more. Sweden being a perfect example.

Re:Failure of thought

[Anonymous Coward]

No. US laws monitor where the actual people involved in the business actually live & work. Their physical location requires them to abide by the regulations. SF.net would have to move all operations to a foreign country if they wanted to remain free to the world.

Re:Failure of thought

[maxume]

I imagine that there is a fair chance that the costs simply aren't worth it for an organization as small as Sourceforge.

In the meantime, I guess peace and love shall continue to suffer.

Re:Failure of thought

[Idiomatick]

I imagine it is the corporate overlord mentioned in the summary not SF per say that would make that decision.

Re:Failure of thought

[Idiomatick]

They could export to a country that isn't on that list but also doesn't give a fuck about these bans the US has. Like Laos or something.

Also I don't see why they can't just transfer the title. Start up a meaningless SF company in Laos. Give all of SF to the new SF. Make US SF a branch of Laosian SF. Profit??

Re:Failure of thought

[Pedrito]

If this rubs SF.net the wrong way so much, why do they continue to operate in the US?

That's a great idea. You want to pay for them to relocate? They're a business. They were established in the U.S. by U.S. citizens. To pick up and relocate isn't exactly something they can do overnight. Nor is it something they can do inexpensively. They're not exactly a huge profit-center. Not to mention, they're owned by another U.S. company, which must also adhere to U.S. laws and would likely have to relocate with them.

As SF.NET said in their post, they live in the real world. You might want to try joining them there.

Re:Failure of thought

[e2d2]

That depends on the definition of success used. If you use the definition "to include the most developers globally" then you would be right. But I suspect their definition is more along the lines of "return on shareholder investment".

Re:Failure of thought

[Zerth]

The US has shown before that they'll arrest employees of foreign companies that are in the US for things the parent company did in other countries. E.g. Skylarov/Elcomsoft.

Re:Failure of thought

[qoncept]

What's the point of building a profitable company if you're going to throw it all away because you don't like the laws?

Re:Failure of thought

[fm6]

IANAL, but I think it would be very hard for any company that does any kind of business in the U.S. if they flout U.S. law. So GeekNet (SF's parent company) would have to move every single U.S. employee over the border. (Which includes the staff of Slashdot. How about it, Rob, Pudge, you guys willing to do the Phillip Nolan act?) And there's still the problem of selling services to U.S. customers.

Come to think of it, since all this comes under the category of "export controls", it would probably be illegal to move the servers across the border. You'd have to start over from scratch, using only software that's legally available outside the U.S.

All in all, a lot of trouble to protect the rights of a few Libyan hackers.

I agree that the laws on this issue are stupid and cause pointless hardship. But SF is in no position to disobey them.

Re:Failure of thought

[644bd346996]

Which would be more successful for SourceForge: near-universal accessiblity, with some politically imposed limits, or universal accessibility to a site that can't handle the load because they can no longer afford the servers and connection they need?

Imperfections don't preclude the US from being the best place for SourceForge to be hosted. I'm sure that if they can find a way to cheaply migrate to a country where the political climate isn't likely to produce this kind of problem in the foreseeable future, then they will. But until you can suggest how this might be achieved, I think it's a safe assumption that the US is the best place to base an English-speaking open-source community site that needs lots of servers, fast internet connections, and major financial backing.

Re:Failure of thought

[SpecBear]

Their servers might be overseas, but their asses would still be within US jurisdiction.

Re:Failure of thought

[couchslug]

"What exactly is the point of ideals if you don't stand up for them?"

Host the content yourself if you are so ready to expect sacrifice of others.

Re:Failure of thought

[HungryHobo]

I'd be curious.
If you were to print the source code for the things they are not allowed to export to countries the US does not like in a book and mailed it to someone living in one of those countries would that be breaking the law or would it be protected by the first amendment?

Re:Failure of thought

[y86]

SF.net and it's employees are United States Citizens and are provided protections and liberties by the USA.

"To follow hatred, you must be blind"

That's a great statement and it's really incendiary but United States citizens are subject to the laws of their own country. We also can't kill people for being of an opposite political party, and genocide against a particular race is illegal.

If you want all of those "freedoms" you should move to Iran.

Re:Failure of thought

[Frosty Piss]

If this rubs SF.net the wrong way so much, why do they continue to operate in the US?

Because, obviously, it doesn't mean *that* much to them. You know, huge fines and face time with Bernard Madoff...

Re:Failure of thought

[jimbolauski]

What exactly is the point of ideals if you don't stand up for them?

So you refuse to pay taxes because part of that money goes to things you don't agree with or have you moved to a different country where your and their ideals align completely?

It's nice to have ideals but an all or nothing attitude won't get you very far.

Re:Failure of thought

[ElSupreme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I never said it would be peaches and cream for them to pick up and go to Finland. I merely pointed out that there is direct conflict arrising between operating in the US and their stated objectives.

I realize it isn't just as simple as moving to Finland.

Re:Failure of thought

[phoenix321]

Never forget that The Man is always right.

I wonder if the printed genome sequence of a super-flu virus is prohibited. And how the hell do they plan to enforce all this?

Re:Failure of thought

[tinkerghost]

Moving a company overseas might be difficult, moving a server is a piece of piss and a few hours work with FTP and getting your DNS fixed.

And does nothing to solve the root problem. It doesn't matter where in the world the servers are located, if SF.net is a US company, US law applies. It's the same with any country. Just because dealing in heroin is legal in Dopisan, doesn't mean I can set up a US, UK, EU, RU, or SA company to import & distribute drugs there.

The only way around that fact is to dissolve the US company and re-incorporate in a country that doesn't have the export restrictions.

Re:Failure of thought

[Runaway1956]

Sometimes, you have to pick your fights carefully. In this day and age, all the inJustice department need do is say the word "terrorism" or "9/11/01" to get an indictment and conviction.

I disagree with some - hell, MOST - of the embargoes, but what's to be done beyond protesting? I can point out that with proxies, anyone in the world can download any code that's available on the web. There's no need for me to SUPPLY a foreign national with anything, is there?

Re:Failure of thought

[NeoSkandranon]

Your picking at my semantics does not invalidate my point

Re:Failure of thought

[HiThere]

One could see this announcement as an advertisement for someone else to set up a mirror site in a country with different restrictions.

Re:Failure of thought

[dwiget001]

Oh, come on now. Every powerpoint presentation I have seen looked like crap!

Re:Failure of thought

[spun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I never said it would be peaches and cream for them to pick up and go to Finland. I merely pointed out that there is direct conflict arrising between operating in the US and their stated objectives.

I realize it isn't just as simple as moving to Finland.

I think you and I have different definitions of 'simple.' How do you propose they move to Finland? Lay off everyone (like Malda and the other fine folks of Slashdot) and rehire Finns? Or pay to move everyone to a foreign country? That's not a false dilemma, those are the only two options. Neither one of which is anything remotely approaching the common definition of 'simple.'

Re:Failure of thought

[steelfood]

That shifts the burden to developers in the US, who would be unable to contribute to projects hosted outside of the US.

That having been said, source code is not a product. It's a blueprint of a product at best. It can also constitute as speech. IANAL, and I haven't read the law in question, but I think restricting binaries is sufficient to comply. On the other hand, nothing short of an outright firewall still might bring the authorities knocking, and result in a costly legal battle, win or lose.

But it's a stupid restriction anyway. If you post something to the internet, you'd expect anybody and everybody to be able to get to it. The internet was designed to know no borders. Laws like those are analogous to laws that mandate the Great Firewall of China.

Re:Failure of thought

[tjstork]

If this rubs SF.net the wrong way so much, why do they continue to operate in the US? Why is SF.net specifically reinforcing their position in the US by adhering to its exclusion of US enemies? Doesn't this make US enemies SF.net enemies?

Well, the USA isn't perfect, but our European allies either tax too much, have even worse government regulations about content, and then, beyond that, you have semi-dictatorships, and then, no nation states at all.

Re:Failure of thought

[unixfan]

Of course this is true of most countries. US certainly has it's faults but is pretty good when it comes to free speech and liberty. Few countries that level of activity in defending those liberties. Which also means protecting hate groups like the KKK. Now if that is not freedom of speech I don't know what is.

Re:Failure of thought

[mwlewis]

Even if that's true (and I have no idea one way or the other), you haven't said anything to contradict the GP. Not to mention that you and he probably have a different geography in mind.

Re:Failure of thought

[CannonballHead]

OT, but no... I really dislike Impress. I actually much prefer powerpoint. It's even faster, at least in my experience, and the presentations are smoother (have had some bad luck with flickering and stuff with Impress). Luckily, I almost never have to use either one.

Re:Failure of thought

[Low Ranked Craig]

You're confusing freedom of expression with idiotic bureaucratic laws governing exports. I can set up a website that says I think Obama is an asshole or Geroge Bush is a moron, I can have a TV Show where I compare the president to Hitler, and no one in the government can or will do anything about it as long as I make no threat. We have freedom of expression as long as that expression is not a direct threat, or as long as it is not liable. I fail to see how you are linking the issue of regulating the export of products with respecting freedom of expression. Note that I didn't say that the limitation is a good thing. It's not, especially since access to that information cannot really be controlled in this manner.

Re:Failure of thought

[gbjbaanb]

You don;t have to pick it up - SF hosts free software, so incorporate a new business in Sweden or similar that just happens to host a mirror of SF's software. Then sf can happily block anyone (assuming that Sweden's not on the list of terror countries, which is possibly is given the US's idiocy and servile pandering to corporate interests) and provide a link to the Swedish mirror.

SF continues as normal, sf.sweden downloads a nightly changeset, job done. In fact, go one better and federate the mirrors around the world.... as long as the 'evil citizens of terror states' don't access the USA mirror, all's good.

Re:Failure of thought

[Thinboy00]

We have freedom of expression as long as that expression is not a direct threat, or as long as it is not libel.

FTFY.

Re:Failure of thought

[MichaelSmith]

Not when it comes to export control. Believe me. If SF Laos deals with Iran then SF Laos can not deal with the US. Laos goes on the list of banned countries unless the Laos government closes SF Laos. Which they will do, more or less immediately.

Re:Failure of thought

[ElSupreme]

That is exactly the point. It ISN'T just a simple as moving to Finland.
And moving to Finland wouldn't be all that simple to begin with.

And it is a false dilemma that 644bd346996 put forward.

'near-universal accessiblity, with some politically imposed limits'. I can accept that as the current, or base assumption.

-- or --

'universal accessibility to a site that can't handle the load because they can no longer afford the servers and connection they need'. I assume that servers, and connections in Finland are about the same cost, and reliability as they are in the USA. I don't even accept prohibited costs as an accepted argument. Not saying it would be cheap or easy, but not saying it is 100% known to be too costly.

I am not saying it would be easy or cheap. But OPERATING COSTS wouldn't Now this doesn't full refute YOUR argument. But there are many other options for them to provide that information. I am not, and have not speculated on them.
Sourceforge could easily change their line to 'to make our community as inclusive as possible within the restrictions of current US law'
They could also disregard the US law.

These are real arguments that are not considered with the False Dilemma.

Re:Failure of thought

[spun]

Sure, my only real point is that moving to Finland, or any other country outside the US, would be very, very complicated.

Re:Failure of thought

[Anne Thwacks]

Since when was there a sea between the US and Canada?

The "Gulf of Misunderstanding" has definitely been there as long as I can remember.

Re:Failure of thought

[sourcerror]

SF Laos doesn't have to "deal" (legally affiliated) with SF US: they just happen to download stuff they found on SF US website (just like anyone else).

In fact, I would be surprised, if the people in N Korea, Iran etc. haven't set up tunnels to do that.

Re:Failure of thought

[Hurricane78]

Aren’t they part of the USA?
Like Europe?

A proud American.

Re:Failure of thought

[gd2shoe]

Not all speech is protected, and just because it's in paper form doesn't mean the 1st amendment will be applied by the courts. Protected speech is primarily political in nature. (like it or not)

Our government has decided that certain algorithms are weapons, and thus claims control on exporting them. Within the States, it seems to be a fuzzy combination of 1st and 2nd amendments that protect us. (from my layman's understanding)

Personally, I think such laws are outdated. The enemies of the US surely use proxy servers here to download whatever public code they wish. If proxy servers didn't exist, they'd find another way to smuggle the information across the Internet. I don't know who they think they're fooling.

Re:Failure of thought

[RichardJenkins]

I read the GP as "It is reprehensible that companies are so eager to bolster their position by lauding their ideals, corporate responsibility and ethical business practices yet be so quick to renege on these principles if sticking to them hurts their bottom line".

I ready you as "snarky snarky snark snark".

Re:Failure of thought

[MichaelSmith]

SF Laos doesn't have to "deal" (legally affiliated) with SF US: they just happen to download stuff they found on SF US website (just like anyone else).

If SF Laos serves content to Iran which the US doesn't want sent to Iran then the US will ask the Government of Laos if they are "with us or against us". Its a big decision to make.

Re:Failure of thought

[ISoldat53]

Now that it's legal to buy Congress, SF should just hire a Senator to stop the enforcement. Stand by to contribute to a special project to pay for it.

Re:Failure of thought

[dissy]

Come to think of it, since all this comes under the category of "export controls", it would probably be illegal to move the servers across the border. You'd have to start over from scratch, using only software that's legally available outside the U.S.

You are probably right. However technically, you just can't take your software over the boarder legally.
Slashcode I would assume is mirrored all over the place (If not, it should be!)

So one would just need to leave the old servers/software behind, move, then redownload it and setup again using the same software.

Amazing how relatively simple it would be to legally avoid this law in this day and age.
Still a needless PITA thou

Re:Failure of thought

[dtmos]

I fail to see how you are linking the issue of regulating the export of products with respecting freedom of expression.

Some years back, US law was changed so that the export of "technology" was controlled, not just the export of physical goods. You can be convicted of an export control violation by speaking privately to a foreign national about a controlled technology, even while both of you are on US soil. Note that this same conversation with a US citizen is perfectly legal -- we aren't discussing espionage here.

In that sense, export control regulation is directly linked to freedom of expression -- in an inverted way.

Re:Failure of thought

[byornski]

How ironic that to be free to the world they'd have to move away from the free world.

Re:Failure of thought

[644bd346996]

You claim that there is some country that would be a better home for SourceForge than the USA. (Possibly Finland)

I claim that:

1. We have no evidence that any such country exists.

2. Even if such a country does exist, SF probably can't afford to move there.

3. Even if they did move there, they would be doing so to be able to operate outside of US law, so they couldn't count on continuing to get any significant funding out of the US, which would prevent them from maintaining their current level of service, particularly with the denied users thrown back in to the userbase.

If you know of a country with a political climate more conducive to SF's operations than in the US, and a way for them to become independent of all US-based funding sources, then by all means, let us and SF know so that we can start raising the cash they will need to move.

Re:Failure of thought

[TapeCutter]

Controls like this are not really a new thing. Encryption techniques used to be considered a munition by most western countries and their export was strictly controlled after WW2. Products such as PGP made a mockery of those laws since the code could be changed from illegal to legal by editing a single #define. The response from governments appears to have been to drop the laws controlling the export specific technology and replace them with laws controlling all exports to specific groups/nations.

The US is very serious about those laws as was demonstrated when two charity workers were jailed for 65yrs for sending money to palestinians via Hamas despite the fact that prosecuters did not accuse them of directly funding terrorist activities.

Re:Failure of thought

[wmac]

And what happens to the contributions of people from those "so called enemy countries"?!!
And who is allowed (ethically) to tag people of different countries as Enemy etc. as a whole?

Re:Failure of thought

[rodgerd]

If it's that big an issue for you, I'm sure you'll be happy to stand up for those ideals; set up a hosting setup and provide SourceForge quality hosting to anyone, irrespective of local laws.

C'mon, you love freedom, right?

Re:Failure of thought

[Per Wigren]

How ironic that to be free to the world they'd have to move away from the free world.

USA != The free world.

Most countries in Europe and many other countries are still pretty darn free, although American lobbyists are working hard to change that.

Re:Failure of thought

[Eunuchswear]

That shifts the burden to developers in the US, who would be unable to contribute to projects hosted outside of the US.

Wow, the situation is worse than I thought - you mean Americans no longer have access to websites outside the US?

Slashdot mods - you moderated that "insightful"!

Re:Failure of thought

[CarbonShell]

I'm still waiting for China to just ignore the US laws and trade with whomever they want.

I'd like to see the US ban imports from China then, which they will not do any just prove they are bullies.

Though it will be just like everything else the US says and does:
Both China AND Cuba are 'evil communists' but one is sanctioned, the other is a major trading partner.

Typical US

Re:Failure of thought

[clone53421]

And 99.44% of deaths in 2006 were not caused by drunk drivers.[1] [2]

[1] - Total number of reported deaths in 2006: 2,426,264
[2] - Total deaths in alcohol-related crashes in 2006: 13,491

Re:Failure of thought

[dtmos]

Yes, but the US regulations controlling the export of specific technologies have not been dropped -- the PGP-related regulation was an exception. To the contrary, the regulations have been greatly expanded in both breadth and specificity. They now include a wide range of seemingly innocuous technologies far beyond encryption and other "national security-type" technologies.

Re:Failure of thought

[twoHats]

and sometimes you have to use the bat on the pigs...

Re:Failure of thought

[Nazlfrag]

The only way it would restrict US developers is if SF was hosted in one of the 'evil' countries.

Re:Failure of thought

[gd2shoe]

Very interesting. Granted, I won't take the word of AC for it. I'll file that away as something to eventually check. The rest of my post stands, though. Besides, what one person gets away with doesn't necessarily tell you what someone else might. If someone replies with a credible link, I'll read it. (I'm not going out of my way to find it at the moment.)

Anyone who can use SourceForge

[wiredog]

can use a proxy to get at SourceForge.

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[daveime]

Unfortunately, all of the good OSS proxies have their source code hosted on sourceforge.

10 PRINT "CIRCULAR REFERENCE"
20 GOTO 10

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[brainboyz]

Anyone who is going to be able to host a proxy to provide access to SF will be able to get the proxy software from SF and host proxied/cached downloads for the client.

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[b4k3d b34nz]

On a related note, I wonder if there are any proxies written in BASIC?

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[TheLink]

Yeah but it gets a bit more inconvenient if you happen to put your project on sourceforge.

Ironically I just started my first SourceForge project[1] (uploaded files, created repo etc) before I saw this. Still, I guess it'll be a while before the US puts my country on the ban list...

[1] a win32 python project that allows quick linking of hotkeys to windows (to allow easier switching amongst arbitrary windows - coz I'm just too stupid to learn how to alt-tab quickly amongst 4 or more windows ;) ). Figuring out how to handle MSO2007 Excel/Powerpoint took a while.

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[daveime]

10 REM IPv6 WILL SERIOUSLY F*CK THIS CODE UP !!
20 DIM DOMAINS(255,255,255,255)

I made a start on the IP to Domain lookup code, I'll let you take it from here.

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[Abreu]

There's several open source repositories outside the US where people can get code.

I know for a fact that many cubans download Open Source software from the National University of Mexico

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[hey!]

It's a good thing the people we are trying to keep our are evil then, because they won't be inconvenienced by that...

Wait a minute, my head is spinning. Does that mean I'm evil?

Re:Anyone who can use SourceForge

[clone53421]

I don’t know, but I’m currently trying to write a GW-BASIC interpreter in Javascript (using canvas for display).

However, since I’m slightly OCD, I notice things like the following, and am trying to make my program behave the same way:

0 REM This line is stored with a space character (0x20) after the line number
1 REM This line and all of the following lines are not
10 GOTO 65530
20 END
6553 PRINT "How'd we get here?" : END
65530 PRINT "Branched"
Syntax error
Ok
RUN
How'd we get here?
Ok
LIST
0 REM This line is stored with a space character (0x20) after the line number
1 REM This line and all of the following lines are not
10 GOTO 65536553
20 END
6553 PRINT "How'd we get here?" : END
Ok
RENUM
Ok
LIST
10 -REM This line is stored with a space character (0x20) after the line number
20 REM This line and all of the following lines are not
30 GOTO 655350
40 END
50 PRINT "How'd we get here?" : END
Ok
RUN
Undefined line number in 30
Ok
RENUM
Undefined line 6553 in 30
Ok

(That hyphen before the REM in line 10 after renumbering should be a space character, but slashcode collapses it.)

Time to move the servers?

[TofuMatt]

Would moving the servers, or serving certain countries from another one (Canada? Europe?) help at all? This is obviously incredibly shitty.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Lordrashmi]

If they want to have any corporate entity in the US they have to follow these laws, the actual physical location of the servers doesn't matter (according to the lawyers I worked with).

It really is quite stupid, it just causes problems and doesn't help anything.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Zcar]

Unless you want to complain about the cops.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless you feel like criticizing the state or something, in which case your last cup of tea will be atypically energetic.

Or, if you aren't cool enough for that, you'll join the long list of journalists and rabble rousers who just get shot in the street.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[wizardforce]

There's nothing stopping a separate legal entity from doing so however. So hypothetically, Sourceforge could fork into separately funded/controlled operations to get around the ban. Correct?

Re:Time to move the servers?

[QBasicer]

Time to move to Antarctica. Or an oil rig in the middle of the ocean. Sealand anyone?

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

Yep, that's what I'm thinking. You're never going to have true freedom unless you have zero government. Even governments that claim to promote freedom are really liars.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

Try photographing or filming the seal hunts and see what happens to you.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Idiomatick]

"zero government" Rwanda?

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

Maybe I should have said, "zero other people".

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Demonantis]

It doesn't even matter if they want to be a corporate entity. I worked for an international company that came into close contact with US export laws all the time. You can't ship a product to one country in transit to another country so if they did move they would still have to enforce an export control on the data that was exported. Secondly, US export law also has this wicked "taint" rule to it. If a US corporation(or citizen, I think) provides technical knowledge towards the product then that product can come under US export laws. It made it really hard to tell the US what we were doing as we did not want to deal with US export law when possible.
The physical location has no bearing on what the US can do to you if you want to deal with them. Just tell that to the "prince" of pot.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try photographing or filming the seal hunts and see what happens to you.

Quite frankly, it really doesn't matter about the laws in place. If you piss off morally dubious, violent people with weapons in a secluded, unwatched area, you're in for a world of trouble.

As for the topic at hand - sf.net user "newark" raises a really good point; SF.net (a US entity) does not own the software. If software was made in a particular country, then it doesn't become US property because it's hosted on a US site - that's despicable, and theft of intellectual property if I ever heard it (unlike piracy, this is people being denied intellectual property which the owners are happy to give them). Also, "newark" points out that FSF has rules explicitly forbidding discrimination - so SF.net are massive hypocrites for associating themselves with free (libre) software.

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this (but I'm reading in threaded order, not chronological, so who knows)

Re:Time to move the servers?

[lgw]

If you don't have the protection of a military, any government can censor you! This is the primary reason we put up with governments, after all - to avoid being conquered by someone with a worse government.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

Quite frankly, it really doesn't matter about the laws in place. If you piss off morally dubious, violent people with weapons in a secluded, unwatched area, you're in for a world of trouble.

No, I'm referring to the laws: photographing, videoing, or even witnessing these stupid hunts is actually illegal in Canada (and no, they're not on private property so that's no defense).

As for people with weapons, that's easy: carry your own weapons when you travel someplace where there might be trouble. I'm sure some buffoons with clubs are no match for an AR-15. Wear some body armor (you can buy it on the internet now) if you anticipate serious trouble.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[HungryHobo]

"photographing, videoing, or even witnessing these stupid hunts is actually illegal in Canada"
I'm trying to find a reference for this.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

The Sea Shepherd group got in trouble for this not long ago.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[kent_eh]

There's nothing stopping a separate legal entity from doing so however. So hypothetically, Sourceforge could fork into separately funded/controlled operations to get around the ban. Correct?

I expect that if SF is in any way related to the "separate legal entity" then they might be in some hot water.
Now, if someone in a properly free country mirrored SF without their permission, or without consulting them at all, and maintained no contact (other than to update the mirrored content, without SF's involvement), I expect that might be legally OK for SF
. Of course, whoever did that would probably be subject to arrest if they were found to be visiting the USA in the future

Re:Time to move the servers?

[spun]

Maybe I should have said, "zero other people".

That's absolutely true. In order to live in society, you trade some freedoms for others. In the end, most people feel that the freedoms that gain are worth more than the freedoms they lose. However, you said before:

Yep, that's what I'm thinking. You're never going to have true freedom unless you have zero government. Even governments that claim to promote freedom are really liars.

And that part is wrong, for the reasons outlined above. Society increases the freedoms of its members, who can do things no individual living alone could possibly do. But in order to live in society, you have to agree to live by society's rules, and this means giving up the freedom to, for instance, punch people in the face. But it is a voluntary trade. If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself. As for me, I like the enhanced freedoms I get from living in society.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

And that part is wrong, for the reasons outlined above. Society increases the freedoms of its members, who can do things no individual living alone could possibly do.

Um, no. You're confusing "freedoms" with "capabilities". Sure, without a society of other people, I can't very well build my own rocket and land on the Moon, or my own network of roads, or my own computer, but that's not because of a lack of freedom, it's because of a lack of capability. My own inability to do these things unaided is the only thing preventing me.

If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself.

No there aren't. It's not 1750 any more; there's no more "frontier" (even back then, aborigines would have caused you problems in supposedly "wild" places). Every piece of land is under the control of some government, and there are very few places on earth without any human settlements, and those that are are completely uninhabitable by humans (places like Arctic tundra, and Saharan desert). Even Antarctica is "governed" by international treaty, and no one's allowed to simply go build a cabin there, even if you could stand the cold without having supplies and fuel flown in regularly.

The only way you can completely get away from all humans now is to build yourself a rocket with tons of supplies for growing food and land on the moon, and build yourself some sort of habitat there. You won't be able to get away from humans forever that way, but probably for the next 200-400 years at the rate we're going now with manned space exploration.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[spun]

No, I'm not confusing anything. Look at negative liberty versus positive liberty. You may not want to define freedom that way, for philosophical reasons, but that does not stop others from already having done so.

Every freedom is created by society, through a contract between individuals. Without society, it is impossible to speak of 'freedoms.' That is when the word 'capabilities' is more appropriate. Without society, you have no freedoms, only power or capability.

Think about freedom of expression. Nearly everyone has the power to express themselves, but that isn't the question, is it? The question is, will someone else try to stop you from expressing yourself? Society is promising a positive freedom, that is, people will do something for you: they will stop someone else from oppressing you.

So you see, by yourself, you do not have the power to express yourself without the threat of someone more powerful stopping you. Your own inability to protect yourself from oppression is the only thing preventing you. Society gives you that freedom, and in trade, you agree to give others that same freedom.

As for getting away, have you tried it? Trust me, it is completely possible, even here in America, to get far enough away from people that you can build yourself a little hut and live all by your lonesome. Think Alaska. It's huge. Yes, theoretically someone may come and ask you what you are doing, but they'd have to find you first.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[spun]

Gah. Link problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

Re:Time to move the servers?

[makomk]

There are already mirrors of the downloads hosted by third parties in other countries that SourceForge redirects users in those countries to. Sourceforge has deliberately decided not to do so in this case, for whatever reasons.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[JesseMcDonald]

Zero government is necessary, but not sufficient. What you really need is zero aggression.

Governments are an obvious target because they are founded on the concept of "legitimate" aggression, but private aggression—any non-defensive violation of property rights, including self-ownership—is just as much of a obstacle to true freedom.

Of course, we can't just wave our hands and do away with aggression overnight, but every little bit helps. It is possible, given sufficient motivation, to promote local zones of non-aggression within one's own community. Over time these zones can grow and merge until true freedom becomes the rule rather than the exception.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

Am I reading this right? Private ownership is an obstacle to true freedom? How so? How can you have true individual freedom without individual ownership? Unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be promoting a society like the Borg's.

As for eliminating aggression, I don't see how that's possible without genetically engineering laziness, greed and selfishness (and especially sociopathy) out of the human species. People with less always want to take from people that have more.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didn't get in trouble for witnessing, photographing or videoing the seal hunt because those are not crimes, or even regulatory violations.

The Sea Shepherd group violated both marine permit regulations and marine safety laws.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Grishnakh]

Oh please. They wouldn't have gotten a permit if they had applied for one.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[sourcerror]

If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself.

Tell this to the Unabomber.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[spun]

If you don't like it, there are still plenty of wild places where no one will bother you, and you can live with all the freedom you can create for yourself, by yourself.

Tell this to the Unabomber.

Would anyone have found him if he weren't, you know, mailing out bombs? I think not.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[rtb61]

Far easier to tackle the source forge specific question upon legal technicality. As open source code, that is technically freely owned by anyone the chooses to use it as long as they adhere to the conditions of redistribution, is source forge actually exporting anything.

It can be claimed that FOSS users in "Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea and Cuba" already own access to the code and are in point of fact not importing the code. There is no exchange, no purchase and, no change of ownership. These are nothing more than straight forward open communication, no different to other already allowed communications, that the communications contain lines of code, does not alter their inherent nature as communications and not the exportation and importation of product upon any recognised trade basis.

Either ban all communications, because it is the energy transmissions that form the communications that are being exported and imported or legally allow to pass through to those people, that by copy right treaty, already have legal access. Unless the US declares via that ban, that those countries are free from the conditions of international copyright treaties by which then can already claim legal access to those code elements.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[Tim C]

If they want to have any corporate entity in the US they have to follow these laws, the actual physical location of the servers doesn't matter

This falls under the general heading of "the courts can see when someone is trying to exploit a perceived loophole in the law and do not usually have a sense of humour about such things". Or - take the piss, expect to have the book thrown at you.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[webweave]

Finally an intelligent comment, I knew I'd find one if I looked long enough. Bravo!

Anyone able to make a significant contribution to or use of files on SF already knows how to find and use a proxy let alone move a few miles (or a few blocks) to the next country not under the ban. Its mock security, reality TV for the network news shows.

I believe you have an extremely elegant solution to the problem or at least a decent attack vector for which to disassemble this "law". I doubt how easy it will be as the people you would have to convince don't seem to have much of a grasp on logic. Look at the list, China is open and Cuba is banned, this alone is mind boggling and an indication of the minds you are about to come against.

Might as well move the servers, will the last one out of the USA please turn out the lights?

Re:Time to move the servers?

[clone53421]

There are marine safety regulations and laws that have to be obey in order to be allowed to get close enough to witness/photgraph/video/record/protest/observe the seal hunt but those are not restrictions on speech as Grishnakn seem to beleive.

If they’re enforced in such a way that certain people can do those things and others cannot, not on the basis of safety or other legitimate reason but on the basis of politics, then yes, they’re restrictions on speech.

Suppose you left the applications from groups you don’t like buried in a pile on your desk. Suppose you finally got around to mailing their permits the day after the event they wanted to protest or film. Would that be a violation of their freedom of speech? But they can’t complain, because they had the same rights as everyone else, didn’t they?

Re:Time to move the servers?

[clone53421]

I really have no knowledge of the particulars of this group or incident. I’m just refuting your blanket statement, because it’s entirely possible to restrict freedom of speech by selective enforcement of regulations and laws and through untimely handling of paperwork. I can’t say whether or not this happened, only that I know it’s possible.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[clone53421]

You said the laws are not restrictions of their freedom of speech:

There are marine safety regulations and laws that have to be obey in order to be allowed to get close enough to witness/photgraph/video/record/protest/observe the seal hunt but those are not restrictions on speech as Grishnakn seem to beleive.

My basic point was (dismissing the particular case in question, which may or may not have been a restriction of their freedom of speech – I don’t know because I don’t know the particulars), the laws can be enforced in a way that is. In fact, just about any law can be selectively enforced in this way.

It’s not about the law being good or bad, it’s a matter of who’s watching the watchers. The laws may be perfectly fair and reasonable and not be in any way restrictions on your freedom of speech, and they could still be enforced in a way that was a restriction of my freedom of speech. So you can’t dismiss Grishnakn’s claims by showing that the law is fair and reasonable; you have to show both that the laws are fair, and that they were fairly applied to him.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[sourcerror]

From wikipedia:
"He began to teach himself survival skills such as tracking, edible plant identification, and how to construct primitive technologies such as bow drills.[1] However, he quickly realized that it was not possible for him to live that way, as a result of watching the wild land around him get destroyed by development and industry."

But I could just remind you the whole history of colonisation.

Re:Time to move the servers?

[anyGould]

It can be claimed that FOSS users in "Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea and Cuba" already own access to the code and are in point of fact not importing the code.

Which leads into the question I have - if I'm in Canada, and I use SF to host my files (I presume SF doesn't claim any ownership), am I suddenly under US export controls? And would I have to prevent US citizens from contributing to my code to avoid becoming "tainted"?

SF should have added a third option just to make a point:
1. Not under export controls, everyone can see.
2. Under US export controls, owned by a US citizen (keep the "evil people" out)
3. Would be under US export control, but not owned by a US citizen (keep US out)

Can you say, 'Proxy Server'? I knew you could!

[hedronist]

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore

Re:Can you say, 'Proxy Server'? I knew you could!

[wizardforce]

I would imagine that at some point in the future, the US govt. will ban proxies as they allow individuals from target countries to circumvent an outright ban.

Re:Can you say, 'Proxy Server'? I knew you could!

[Threni]

In the future, that may be a concern. It's not why that is not being done now.

Re:Can you say, 'Proxy Server'? I knew you could!

[ermon]

I am not sure how this will work - You won't know a request comes from a 'proxy' rather than a 'user' unless you have some sort of world-wide authentication of users.

Sure, the US can ban the use of proxies in the US - but how about a proxy in Finland or Russia?
Is the US going to filter inbound connections and drop requests coming from 'known proxies' (which is also unlikely to be an effective measure)?

Re:Can you say, 'Proxy Server'? I knew you could!

[Eil]

I am really, really starting to hate this quote.

First, personifying the Internet is just stupid. The second you have to give a system as complex as the Internet human-like qualities to make your point, the metaphor loses any credibility it might have had. The Internet is comprised of humans and human technology, but bears no resemblance at all to a human, so the premise falls completely flat.

Second, routing around censorship is becoming very difficult. "Just use a proxy," everyone says. The fact is, it's not as simple as that. The Great Firewall of China is the shining example because it is surprisingly thorough and effective. Not much "forbidden" material gets through it anymore. They add known proxies to the list all the time and block any content to do with proxies. A middle-class individual might have the cash to buy a U.S.-based VPS or something to tunnel their traffic through, but not everyone is going to have the means for that.

Third, the quote advocates an attitude of, "sure, go ahead, censor all you want, we'll just figure out a way around it." The correct response to someone infringing on your rights is to stand up and say, "No, you will not take this from me without a fight." Those countries with mandatory censorship are those whose majority of citizens are okay with it. And that's fine by me. It's their country, it's their business how they govern themselves. What I fear most is that when (not if, when) law makers start talking about Internet censorship in my country, there will be people like you sitting there with a huge grin on your face smugly accepting it because you very wrongly believe nothing will change for the worse because hey, I know how to use proxies! And this Internet thing is so great that it will just magically route around censorship for me anyway. I don't wish to belabor the point any further than necessary, so let me just say this as clearly as I possibly can: NO IT FUCKING WON'T.

Re:Can you say, 'Proxy Server'? I knew you could!

[Tim C]

That's certainly possible - but given that it is citizens of other countries (those on the export prohibition list) that would be using the proxies, I'm not sure what good banning them would be.

Unless you're suggesting that serving via a proxy would be banned, in which case, how would you tell that the connection was coming via a proxy?

Re:Can you say, 'Proxy Server'? I knew you could!

[mrmeval]

How can I go about getting a copy of their database and hosting it somewhere else? I know there is mirror software but it now sounds like mirroring systems will be broken by this so any sort of updating is going to be difficult. I know about proxies but they are a suboptimal solution due to bandwidth issues and reliability.

No Helium for Nazis

[flyneye]

With any luck this will force Bin Laden to have to use Windows O.S. and programs from downloads.com to do his twisted interpretation of Allahs will.
There could be some justice in this yet.

Re:No Helium for Nazis

[Culture20]

With any luck this will force Bin Laden to have to use Windows O.S. and programs from downloads.com to do his twisted interpretation of Allahs will. There could be some justice in this yet.

"Al Qaeda's latest offer of peaceful relations with all peoples of the Earth will culminate in a computer controlled robotic presentation of Fiddler on the Roof. The robots are taking the stage now...

*DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL*

It's crashing! Watch it! Watch it, folks! Get out of the way! Get out of the way! Get this, Charlie! Get this, Charlie! It's fire--and it's crashing! It's crashing terrible! Oh, my, get out of the way, please! It's burning and bursting into flames, and the--and it's falling off the stage and all the folks agree that this is terrible, this is the worst of the worst catastrophes in the world. Ohhhhh! It's-it's-it's the flames, [indecipherable, 'enty' syllable] oh, four- or five-hundred feet into the sky and it ... it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It's smoke, and it's flames now ... Oh, the humanity and all the audience screaming around here."

No Helium indeed.

Re:No Helium for Nazis

[CarbonShell]

That would mean everyone using a Windows is a potential terrist?

Haha, now Windoze users can have two people sticking a finger up their rears.

Ah, that old law again.

[istartedi]

Fond memories of the form that came up for 128-bit browsers back in the 90s. They always used to ask you to provide your information, and certify that you weren't from a bad country. I wish that was a joke; but no. They really did that. Cuz, you know... somebody who was up to no good would actually be deterred by that. Sheesh!

Any 5 year old can tell all you need is 1 guy to come over and get an ISP account. I'm quite sure that all the countries on the list not only have state-of-the-art OSS/FS encryption software, they have pirated closed-source software as well.

Re:Ah, that old law again.

[bigredradio]

I remember Apple having an advert that exploited this. The Apple G4 was considered a weapon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Eb1yih5kNY I love the line at the end "As for the PC, it's harmless"

Re:Ah, that old law again.

[funkatron]

2 questions:

1. Why have such silly laws?
2. Why obey them?

Re:Ah, that old law again.

[OldEarthResident]

Evil Overlord Rule #12:

One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.

Perhaps policy makers should read the Evil Overlord list before making policy. :-)

Re:I blame Bush

[daveime]

I thought he'd left already, but there he was, back again, and Big Billy too !!!

Old characters are returning to the Whitehouse more times than a season finale of Doctor Who. I keep expecting Billie Piper to pop up behind Hilary Clinton.

Relocate SourceForge to China

[maroberts]

I don't think it has any problems with connection to any of those countries....

Maybe you can swap servers with Google...:-)

Wassenaar Arrangement

[Thelasko]

I'm guessing this has something to do with the Wassenaar Arrangement.

Re:Wassenaar Arrangement

[chill]

But what part? An exception was granted back in 1994(?) for open-source cryptography. It doesn't require export review or control, just an e-mail notification with a URL to the source code.

I'm not sure what else would apply...

You don't fight Internet censorship...

[mdm-adph]

...with more Internet censorship. This is ridiculous. Export laws are what they are, but if we're trying to help open up the Internet in these countries, banning them from accessing knowledge hosted on our servers isn't helping one bit.

Re:You don't fight Internet censorship...

[FooAtWFU]

Maybe they can borrow some EFF help and try to make a First Amendment case out of it.

Re:You don't fight Internet censorship...

[fm6]

This isn't about censorship, this is about denying countries we don't like access to our technology. That said, I agree that it's a stupid law that doesn't do anything at all useful.

Re:You don't fight Internet censorship...

[JanneM]

This isn't about censorship, this is about denying countries we don't like access to our technology.

Just because the servers happen to sit in the US doesn't happen it's US technology. Many Open SOurce projects and man of the individual contributors are not from the US, and the US doesn't have any particular legal right to claim that as their own.

Time to look at Scandinavian hosting sites methinks.

Re:You don't fight Internet censorship...

[fm6]

I can understand not reading past the first sentence when the post you're responding to is some long diatribe. But this one was just a few sentences, and the sentences you didn't read made it pretty clear that I was not defending the law.

Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[neo00]

As a Syrian developer who contributed so several open source project, I call this action unnecessary and outrageous. Sorry, I can’t understand this decision which was taken silently and cowardly by sf.net . I understand that the US law prohibits US companies from exporting their products to the “axis of evil” countries. But what I don’t understand is how sf.net considers the projects they're hosting as US products? It doesn’t make any sense. SF.net DID NOT create these projects. It just HOSTS them. Most of these projects are got contributions from people around the world including people from these countries. Suddenly they can’t access their own work, because sf.net considers them American products! That’s stupid!
Furthermore, it’s a direct violation of the freedoms of Free Software and section 5 of opensource definition:

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups”
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

I hope sf.net reconsider their decision. And at least to stand positively to defend the basic principles of FLOSS.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[achbed]

The issue is not the ownership or contributing membership of the individual projects. The issue is that by hosting, a copy of the software is being maintained under the control of whomever owns and/or controls the hosting servers. In the case of software hosted by a US company or person, that company or person is held responsible for ensuring that the content of that server follows applicable US and/or state law. This includes export laws. So, by you uploading something to their server, they are instantly liable for that. And for every transmission, that is one export, so charge counts, and thus fines add up fast. To ensure that they exist as a company tomorrow, they have to take this step (as crappy as it seems).

Oh and to those of you suggesting to move the hosting servers, that does not remove you from legal liability. If the servers are under your control, and you live in the US, you still have to follow US export laws. So, just by setting up a mirror server in another country that's on the export list, you're violating the law.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[jjohnson]

The problem is the hosting is in the U.S. Like it or not, that gives the U.S. government leverage to enforce its laws on the organization.

Push sf.net to move to offshore hosting. As long as its servers are in the U.S., sf cannot expect to win a fight with the U.S. gov't.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[neo00]

Well how about google search and all the American websites, shouldn't they block ban these countries since when someone opens their website some software technology is "transfered" to them (html and javascript code)?

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[brainboyz]

By allowing you to access their hosting, they are exporting their service to your country. FLOSS wishes or not, section 5 of the FoFS doesn't supersede US Law for those in the US.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[e2d2]

They can't access their work? There are no copies of this code? That's a bad joke. Like you said, they only host the projects so no real harm done. Host elsewhere. Problem solved. Team Forge FTW.

Also, they never said they would violate a country law to enforce an open source ideal. It doesn't work that way. Copyrights, patents, trademarks - these things can be disputed in civil court. You violate federal laws you go to prison. There is no choice to be made at all.
 

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[NeoSkandranon]

As long as SF is a US company, it is beholden to US laws.

It's surprising how many people here think that physical hosting location is relevant, compared to the location of the company; is that not the case elsewhere?

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Zerth]

The US government isn't exactly the most discriminating in its enforcement of law. SF probably isn't willing to ensure that all of the software hosted is properly categorized between prohibited and permissible. I had to recently check the exportability of a product and I'm still not entirely sure I won't get nailed because I just read about somebody shipping plumbing supplies getting fined because they might be used to make chemical weapons.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[OverlordQ]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of people will pick not going to prison vs providing data to people the law wont allow just because it's 'Open Source'.

Being FLOSS has nothing to do with it, they'd still have to do this if they were hosting proprietary code.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[marcansoft]

The freedoms of Free Software apply to licenses, not people or entities. This isn't a violation of any open source license as far as I'm aware. Roughly speaking, licenses will require either nothing in this regard (BSD doesn't force you to give away the code or binaries to anyone at all), or distribution of source code to people who receive binaries (GPL and the like). SourceForge isn't doing this, they're just refusing to distribute anything at all to these countries. This also has nothing to do with the software itself, just the act of hosting it. It's about the service, not the good. No one is preventing you from accessing your own work, just from accessing it through SourceForge's service (servers). Just have someone in a neutral country get it for you; this is perfectly legit and I bet even encouraged by SF.

The licenses themselves cannot include these kinds of limitations (if a licence says you can't run the program if you're North Korean, then it isn't an open source license, and this is what Freedom 5 is all about), but they do not require that users have this kind of openness. In fact, it is unnecessary: since the license lets you redistribute the program, all it takes is a third party to proxy between a restrictive distributor and the destination that he wants to avoid.

You can disagree with SF's take on the subject, but they aren't violating any licenses. If they did export to restricted countries, they would be violating local law. Given the availability of proxies and the like, it would be a questionably useful move. So the US government wants to annoy you; work around it and complain about the US government all you want (and rightly so), but don't blame the people who are just following the law.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

It's highly appropriate that we should hear from somebody on the ground in Syria. One of the points of this law is to gain leverage against the Syrian government, which Washington considers unfriendly. It's a stupid, shortsighted strategy, that doesn't really accomplish anything, except hurt innocent people.

On the other hand, it's a little inconsistent to call SourceForge "cowardly" for not standing up the government. (Note that the wording of any OS agreement they adhere to is irrelevant — no agreement to act illegally is valid.) Would you dare to flout Syrian law the same way? Not to judge your system of government, but you have to acknowledge the consequences would be pretty severe. U.S. law is less so, but they can still put SourceForge out of business and maybe put some of its people in jail.

Sometimes you do have to go to jail for what you believe in. But this isn't one of them.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[marcansoft]

No, because they aren't providing binaries either. The GPL requires that they provide source if they provide binaries. No binaries, no source requirement.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[number11]

FLOSS wishes or not, section 5 of the FoFS doesn't supersede US Law for those in the US.

No, but being in the US does not mean you're not guilty of violating the GPL if you do obey those restrictions.

What this may mean is that it is not possible to host GPL software in the US and still be in compliance with the license. That certainly seems to apply to anything covered by GPL2:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

GPL3 does not seem to have this clause, so maybe SF is ok for GPL3 projects.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[neo00]

I wasn't talking about licenses, I was talking about the principles of Free Software and Open Source Software, which necessitate no discrimination against any people whatsoever. Whether it's the law or not, it doesn't prevent it from being against the FLOSS very basic principles.
I still can't believe that the US law actually applies to SF. The "export restriction" law cannot/shouldn't be applied to products of collective global work and efforts. What's next, Wikipedia? Slashdot? Google? Why not, they also provide service to people in those countries. And services are products.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[neo00]

These restrictions were initiated on Syria in 2005. I don't know about the other countries, but I'm pretty sure it all started during the Bush administration. So they're not really that old. But anyway, it's time they changed. The censorship Syrians are getting from the US side probably outweighs the Syrian censorship. Think of it, you can't download a lot of free software, no google apps, no sun JRE, no antiviruses, nothing!

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[marcansoft]

I wasn't talking about licenses, I was talking about the principles of Free Software and Open Source Software, which necessitate no discrimination against any people whatsoever.

But you quoted an item in the open source definition, which applies to licenses, and which doesn't apply here.

The actions don't violate the letter of open source, that's certain. Whether they violate the spirit is a more debatable question. They certainly violate my personal principles, but that's just personal opinion; I'm not sure it's fair to extend this to the entire open source community.

The "export restriction" law cannot/shouldn't be applied to products of collective global work and efforts.

Again, I'm pretty sure the rational here is the hosting service is being exported, not the products themselves (which no one is arguing are "American").

Wikipedia? Slashdot? Google? Why not, they also provide service to people in those countries. And services are products.

Yes, those might fall for the same reasons. Retarded? You bet. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the US government at all, but you should direct your anger at them, not at SF.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[phayes]

Sometimes you do have to go to jail for what you believe in. But this isn't one of them.

Yeah, that's true. And then there are those who are assassinated for defying Syria's domination of Lebanon.

It's funny but I feel more sympathy for the people imprisoned for working for human rights in Syria than I do for the poor Syrian geeks who are no longer able to access sourceforge.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

On the other hand, it's a little inconsistent to call SourceForge "cowardly" for not standing up the government. (Note that the wording of any OS agreement they adhere to is irrelevant -- no agreement to act illegally is valid.) Would you dare to flout Syrian law the same way? Not to judge your system of government, but you have to acknowledge the consequences would be pretty severe.

In the US, the legal system is designed such that bad laws need to be broken in order to get standing in court to have them overturned. Syria doesn't even make a pretense that they expect citizens to challenge their laws. Comparing the two is really disingenuous.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[dissy]

It doesn't make any sense. SF.net DID NOT create these projects.

PGP was not created in the US either, but was one of the major victoms of this law.

It was legal for someone in the US to download it from DE, but illegal for that same person to put it up for download without restrictions, and if that exact same person in DE downloaded it from the US, the person in the US is going to jail.

So no, SF did not create any of those projects, nor are they all USA technology. You are correct in that point.

You are incorrect in that point matters at all. The law doesn't make any such distinction.

So basically you are calling SF cowardly because they don't want to be sent to prison and killed by the guards.
Lovely.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[DriedClexler]

Sorry, I can't understand this decision which was taken silently and cowardly by sf.net .

They're no more cowardly than you are in letting your goverment harbor and sponsor terrorists.

I know what you're thinking -- "You can't expect me to change government policy on ...", and you're right.

Well, neither can SourceForge change government policy -- and they're right.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[russotto]

As a Syrian developer who contributed so several open source project

User: neo00
Status: Account suspended by order of United States Government.

Seriously, if the IEEE wouldn't stand up to the government on the issue of _editing articles by Iranian authors_ (same law, different application -- and one with much more direct First Amendment implications), you can't expect Sourceforge.net to stand up to them. Make the penalty terrible enough and it doesn't matter how unjust the law is.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

I take it you don't much approve of the Damascus regime. Fair enough, but do remember that our Syrian friend doesn't lose any of his rights just because his own government doesn't respect them. Our own government is the bad guy here, and none the less bad because other governments are worse.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[http]

How is this NOT one of those times?

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

Court challenges aren't the only way to get rid of bad laws. Not even clear that there's any basis for a court challenge of this law. And even if there was, I don't think the CEO of GeekNet has any moral obligation to risk his company's existence and his own freedom just to challenge an export law.

Any comparison between the U.S. and Syrian governments is in your own head. I think I made it pretty clear which one I prefer. But the sins of one government don't become less important because another government is even worse.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

I'd love to debate the point with you, but I have to go join an employee sit-in over a gross violation of our rights: the company has switched to a cheaper brand of coffee!

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Lehk228]

blockquote>The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

if it were lost then the "best" available source would be a c / asm decompile, so distribute that. far less than optimal, but it should suffice for complying in that circumstance, and if enough people want better source a bad enough dude could come along and remake a more legible source file.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Court challenges aren't the only way to get rid of bad laws.

Did I use the word "only" or some synonym?

Not even clear that there's any basis for a court challenge of this law.

Not even clear that it's not even clear that there's any basis for a court challenge of this law.

Any comparison between the U.S. and Syrian governments is in your own head.

Yeahhhhh, sure it is. I just spontaneously brought up the idea of "daring to flout syrian law in the same way."

Continuing in your fine tradition of just making up shit, eh?

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

Oh, it's you again. Didn't I already explain how boring you are?

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Xest]

"On the other hand, it's a little inconsistent to call SourceForge "cowardly" for not standing up the government. (Note that the wording of any OS agreement they adhere to is irrelevant -- no agreement to act illegally is valid.)"

This is a legal quagmire. Whilst you're right that anyone in the US would not get in trouble for this, if someone in Europe were to say, fork a GPL project and then host it on SF then they could very well be in breach. The reason is because Europe does not have embargos on all these countries, so the license is not in conflict with the law for Europeans, if they host projects on SF knowing about the embargos, hence meaning they have put the forked GPL code somewhere where it is not equally available to all then they are certainly in breach of the GPL.

As you can see, this is a major problem, and if SF can't/won't relocate, then developers working with the GPL from outside of the US would probably be best served moving to a platform other than SF to ensure that they are adhering to the GPL.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Xest]

Oh my, I sincerely hope you're not American, preaching to others about harbouring terrorists.

You do realise the US acted as a safe haven, training grounds and turned a blind eye to funding of IRA terrorists guilty of terrorist attacks on Britain right?

Yes, they are cowardly. They may not be able to change it, but quietly whimpering away with their tail between their legs without making a very public fuss and complaining about it is the worst thing they could do.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Didn't I already explain how boring you are?

No. It was all in your head.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[phayes]

Oh grow up & join the adult world will you? Syria's government has been using terrorism to further it's goals for decades. The US & other governments around the world have tried many different tactics to try to convince them that these methods are not acceptable. How exactly is making access to OpenSource a little more difficult worse that any of the other methods used? Because it's geeky? Because you weirdly perceive the access to open source servers to be of a higher moral value than basic human rights? Think!

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

Dude, explain one thing to me: why should I care about anything you say? Every single word you've addressed to me has been premised on my total lack of intellectual ability and honesty. That's a self-fulfilling premise, since it allows you to interpret everything I say as nonsense, without any actual effort to assess its quality.

That makes talking to you pointless, which in turn makes listening to you pointless.

Now, if you can somehow find a way to address me that is void of sarcasm and shows that you have a least considered the possibility that I'm not a total dickhead, then we can have a conversation. Otherwise, the following sentence is the last one that will ever be addressed from me to you:

You are, to use your own terminology, a dickhead.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

I never defended the Syrian government. I've specifically said that I don't consider them good guys. Yet you keep accusing me of being their apologist. If you don't pay attention to what I say, why should I pay attention to what you say?

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Every single word you've addressed to me has been premised on my total lack of intellectual ability and honesty.

Totally false. I originally responded to you in this thread completely on the level. And then you just went into outer space with your response. The first half of your response was premised on an argument that I did not make - [i]why[/i] would you do that? And then the second half was a denial of your very own words just one post up the thread. What is ANY neutral observer supposed to take away from that?

You are, to use your own terminology, a dickhead.

See, here you go again coming in from outer space - "dickhead" is YOUR terminology. Go back and read the previous thread - you were the one who used the term "dickhead," first and multiple times before I ever quoted it back at you. If you are going to hang your hat on accusations like that when they are demonstrably false - and trivially easy to demonstrate at that - just how should I interpret that? As a sign of superior intellect? REALLY? Would you do the same if the situation was reversed and I was consistently getting basic facts wrong?

I understand how you got confused in those cases and the ones in the previous thread - but instead of going back and checking yourself, you dig in deeper. And when you chose to protect your ego over correcting your errors like that, you can't reasonably lay claim to any sort of intellectual honesty.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[phayes]

No. By refusing to accord that the reason the syrian geeks are being cut off is due to despicable actions performed by their own government & criticizing the USG for a by comparison extremely benign reprisal you explicitly become an apologist for the Assads. Once again, Think!

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[DriedClexler]

You do realise the US acted as a safe haven, training grounds and turned a blind eye to funding of IRA terrorists guilty of terrorist attacks on Britain right?

I'm sorry, I must have missed when al-Qaeda phoned in advance warning of the time and place of the 9/11 attacks so people could clear out of the area and avoid civilian casualties.

You know, like the IRA does.

Yes, they're both technically terrorists, but really, they're not even in the same fuckin league.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[rastoboy29]

Have you lost your mind?  Free Software is not Products.
They wouldn't even be just U.S. products anyway.
And how is this different than if CNN.com started doing the same thing, avoiding shipping their news "product" to Syria.
Get a grip!

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

Usually thinking involves things like logic and evidence. If you were familiar with such concepts it might occur to you that the Syrian government is unlikely to change its policies just because we're being mean to their hackers.

This thread seems to be plagued by nitwits who think "you're stupid!" is an argument. Or is there more than one? I smell sock puppets. If so, you really need to get out more.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

Lamest sock puppet ever.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[phayes]

Go teach your granny to suck eggs junior, I've been telling you since the beginning to start thinking with no visible results so far. Words are only noises until you start applying the concepts behind them.

The point of sanctions is to bring pressure from multiple points to induce the desired changes. None of the sanctions need inconvenience the Syrians in any insurmountable way, yet added together they may yet induce the desired abandonment of terrorism as a policy. Only a twit would single out a single sanction as being unlikely to effect change and therefore useless. Unless, of course, if the person was an Assad apologist who is in favor of the continued use of terrorism by the Syrian regime.

So, which is it?

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

Interesting that you completely ignored my sockpuppet speculation.

As I said before, it's pointless to argue with somebody who's found a way to dismiss everything you say out of hand. If you really want to argue with me, give the other side some credit for actually having a brain. If you can't do that, your stupid games don't fool anybody.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[rastoboy29]

YOU'RE a sock puppet!

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[phayes]

I'll start replying to your digressions when you start answering my questions. I don't see that happening as you have been caught out defending the indefensible and will continue to use cheap debating tricks to try & divert that fact.

Re:Violation to freedoms of Free Software

[fm6]

Whatever. Ignoring you now.

It's time to stop playing at national security

[MikeRT]

The US doesn't want to face up to the fact that the only way to keep very serious, proprietary technology out of the hands of hostile states is to severely punish those in the US who facilitate the transfer. So instead, it adopts security theater here much like it pretends that it is fighting child exploitation by posting cops all over chat rooms to entrap people who have a passive interest in jailbait at best instead of actually hunting for real, serious child molesters. This allows the national security hawks to believe that we're "being tough," when in fact if we were tough, we wouldn't give a shit about SF.net, but would instead be executing men like this (just read it before attacking me, it was the first Google search result) without a second thought.

This won't do **anything** except deter some students in these countries who don't know how to find a foreign proxy. It certainly won't stop foreign intelligence officers who try to get actual weapon systems and other serious munitions.

Re:It's time to stop playing at national security

[clone53421]

Program code is speech

No, it isn’t. It’s not read or listened to. It’s understood only by computers. The only people who see it are typically the ones who create it. It conveys no meaning to the average human. It is a blueprint, not “speech”.

Political Asylum

[el_jake]

You should seek political asylum in Europe the land of the Real Free. Not bound by legal enslavement or crooked intelligence agencies, yet.

Re:Political Asylum

[greyhueofdoubt]

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3788

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_France#Disabled_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom#The_UK_before_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights

I'm not saying that Europe is broken and the U.S. is perfect, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

-b

Re:Political Asylum

[Angst Badger]

You should seek political asylum in Europe the land of the Real Free. Not bound by legal enslavement or crooked intelligence agencies, yet.

It's definitely a possibility, as day by day, "stand and fight" becomes less and less realistic.

Re:Political Asylum

[Nazlfrag]

I still don't see where anyone in Europe is so scared of impoverished third world countries that they feel they must have extremely broad export restrictions.

Anybody here remember the history of PGP?

[mmell]

DeCSS?

Early opensource implementations of RSA encryption?

If efforts to stop these failed (and there were efforts, and they did fail), I suspect this will also fail.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Move along.

Re:Anybody here remember the history of PGP?

[homer_s]

(and there were efforts, and they did fail

Not for the politician who got to say that he helped prevent "technology from getting into the wrong hands".

Sad but real

[dtmos]

The alternative is to end up like Prof. John Ross of the University of Tennessee, convicted of export control violations and sentenced to 4 years in prison -- at the age of 72.

What few in the US recognize is that the rules are even more stringent than indicated by SourceForge. To be convicted of an export violation, one needs merely to discuss a controlled technology with a foreign national on one of the lists -- which means, in addition to many other individuals, entities, and countries, any citizen of China or Iran. Sending anything overseas is unnecessary to violate the law -- merely speaking to a group containing one such person in the audience (like at a private industry consortium meeting) is all that is needed. And the list of controlled technologies is incredibly long: See the Commerce Control List, especially Category 3 - Electronics, Category 4 - Computers, Category 5 (Part 1) - Telecommunications, Category 5 (Part 2) - Information Security, and Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes.

Re:Sad but real

[Tanuki64]

Good reason why I never will visit the USA. I'd probably have the same bad feeling I'd have in China. Or...on second thought...I'd feel more secure in China. If I'd get arrested there, I'd have at least the broad public on my side. If I'd get arrested in the USA I wonder how many would think this must be my own fault since he USA are a constitutional state and by definition the 'good'.

Re:Sad but real

[lgw]

That John Ross guy (to judge from your link) shared information from a military contract with a foreign national. What did he think would happen? That seems unrelated to your point that export controls can be surprising.

Re:Sad but real

[istartedi]

I actually followed your first link, and I have no sympathy for him. WTF was he thinking? Military project. Non-disclosure to foreign nationals IN HIS CONTRACT. Taking a laptop to China. Lying to his bosses.

That's not something you stumble into by accident.

Re:Sad but real

[phantomfive]

I don't know what country you live in, but if it is a Western European country, chances are you have similar laws, so this isn't a problem of 'USA,' it is a problem of living in a world where countries still want to destroy other countries.

Re:Sad but real

[butlerdi]

Even worse was Dr. Butler (no relation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Butler. Amerika is now a rogue state and should be treated as such.

Re:Sad but real

[darkmeridian]

You have a good point, but citing the case of John Reece Roth doesn't make a lot of sense. Prof. Roth was working on "plasma actuators" for use on US Air Force drones. They were considered military secrets. The terms of the contract he signed forbid the transfer of any sensitive data with foreign nationals. He was warned to keep these documents guarded. He documents acknowledging that the export limitations applied, and that he was aware that the law required him to secret the data. Yet he transferred the information to people he knew were Chinese nationals. It's a pretty open and shut case to me.

Re:Sad but real

[phantomfive]

On the face of it, that decision with the 72 year old professor sounds bad, but if you actually read the story he basically exported designs for military weapons out of the country and delivered them to China. He was also warned beforehand that what he was doing was illegal and told to stop, but he kept doing it.

It's a completely different situation from this case, which appears to be a bit of security theater.

Re:Sad but real

[phayes]

Funny how all the Europeans denouncing the USA are ignorant of the dirty arm twisting their governments are attempting to apply to Canada. Note that I live in europe & vote against this crap but too many here are just to ignorant to care.

Re:Sad but real

[janwedekind]

In China there is freedom of speech. Nobody who lives there would disclaim that.

Re:Sad but real

[nschubach]

The GP is in China I assume:

I'd feel more secure in China. If I'd get arrested there...

I don't know how he thinks the rest of China will defy the country since Tiananmen, but whatever.

Re:Sad but real

[dtmos]

To avoid repeating myself, please read an earlier comment. In addition, keep in mind that the "foreign nationals" to whom he shared the information were his graduate students, who had actually been doing the work in the first place.

Read the CCL and see if any of your work is controlled -- you may be surprised.

Re:Sad but real

[dtmos]

Ross is serving time for his own stupidity.

To be sure; I don't defend him. For the record, however, the "foreign nationals" he hired were his graduate students, who knew the material because they'd already been working on it. Also, he was not convicted of presenting any controlled material in China. He was convicted of having the controlled material on his laptop while visiting China, and forensics experts testified at the trial that the files had not been accessed during his trip.

My point is that the export control regulations are extremely detailed, can be rigidly enforced, and are not compatible with the free flow of information usually found in academia (and FOSS). US citizens need to be aware of these restrictions -- which include merely discussing controlled material in the presence of certain foreign nationals, like in private organizational meetings -- and follow them, even if they go against FOSS principles, or run the risk of ending up like Dr. Ross.

Re:Sad but real

[dtmos]

Mostly correct -- except that Ross was not convicted of espionage. Plasma actuators were not "military secrets," but a controlled technology that Dr. Ross and his graduate students -- a Chinese and an Iranian national -- had already developed. Dr. Ross thought it was patently obvious that a technology co-invented by his students could not be the subject of an export control issue, especially in an academic environment, so he (stupidly, in my opinion) ignored the regulation.

My point is that those in the FOSS community who believe that FOSS principles supersede government regulation should pay attention to the story of Dr. Ross. Study the Commerce Control List carefully and you may find that there are subjects in your work that you cannot mention over drinks at the next faculty social.

Re:Sad but real

[NATP]

Well -- not more than once, anyway.

Re:Sad but real

[dtmos]

Dr. Ross didn't export a military weapon design. He was a plasma physicist. He discussed research on plasma actuators with his own former graduate students, who had developed the technology in the first place, and happened to be Chinese and Iranian. Nothing was ever "delivered" to China; it was shown in court that the information on his laptop was never accessed.

The reason this is exactly on point is that there is a lot of discussion on this post about the "higher calling" of FOSS principles over US law. Dr. Ross believed that the free exchange of ideas was fundamental to academic life, and trumped bureaucratic regulations. He found out to his great regret (I think) that it did not.

I suggest that you read the Commerce Control List, and study carefully the technologies that are controlled, and must be licensed before they can be exported to China. You will find them to be very mundane technologies and, if you do engineering research, the probability that you have controlled material on your main work computer is very high.

Re:Sad but real

[dtmos]

Dr. Ross did not sell information to the Chinese, and there were no proceeds to hide. He believed that export control regulations involved only finished physical goods, that they did not apply to the exchange of intellectual ideas in academia, and that they could be ignored when they were inconvenient. These turned out to be serious errors in judgment. (As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't support his position. Like Mr. Spock, I do not approve. I understand.)

There is no difference between Dr. Ross' belief in the superiority of free academic discourse over US export regulation, and the position espoused by some here of the superiority of FOSS principles over those same regulations. By stopping its export of controlled technology to banned countries, SourceForge made the only rational decision it could make, under the circumstances.

A better argument, and more useful discussion, would be whether or not that technology deserves to be controlled.

Re:Sad but real

[flydpnkrtn]

I'm having a hard time figuring out what the grandparent poster's point in pointing out the Prof. Ross case as well... the man deliberately gave away military secrets.

Unless he has a legitimate defense that involves arguing he's senile or he's suffering from dementia, he did the crime so he's doing the time....

Re:Sad but real

[dtmos]

They weren't "military secrets." He was not convicted of espionage -- he was convicted of export control violations. The information involved could be given to any US citizen without any problem at all.

The point I'm trying to make is that Dr. Ross believed that academic freedom (the grad students that invented and developed the technology in the first place were from China and Iran) trumped pesky government regulations, in much the way many here are saying that FOSS principles trump those same regulations. I'm saying that SourceForge made the only decision they could make, to avoid ending up like Dr. Ross.

Keep in mind how such cases are slanted in the press, and imagine how some responsible SourceForge executive could be similarly characterized after his conviction for "sending US technology to Syrian terrorists" (just to pick one possible example), were he to have made a different decision than the one announced today.

Re:Sad but real

[Vitriol Angst]

Meanwhile,...
As the FBI closes in on the Professor, and our government chides us that "lose lips sink ships" ...

GM is setting up weapons production plants and auto manufacturing in China. Also on the menu is enhanced Nuclear Weapons technology.

Maybe one day, they will be arresting some poor schmuck at GM for mentioning important state secrets to a visiting American student.

That's why we have to spend so much on the defense of our nation -- so that we can deter dangerous rivals like,.. ... Iran -- a least that's what spokesmodels at GM's News Stations say when not telling us about the problems with entitlement programs and the huge expenses involved in Health Care.

The good news is that nobody is ever going to invade America -- they will just set up Toll Roads and we will never know where that little coin ends up.

Re:Sad but real

[Xest]

"I don't know what country you live in, but if it is a Western European country, chances are you have similar laws, so this isn't a problem of 'USA,' it is a problem of living in a world where countries still want to destroy other countries."

Whilst we have export restrictions on weapons and materials that may be used to build weapons (i.e. metal tubes) we don't have anything as stupid as the US restrictions on Cuba, a country that is completely harmless and has done nothing wrong on an international level in about 50 years. It's particularly hypocritical when you note that the US doesn't have similar restrictions on Venezuela and yet Venezuela has been illegaly seizing foreign companies, importing large amounts of weaponry and so forth now for years. Tell me, do you really believe Cuba or even Syria for that matter has any interest in destroying or even attacking the US?

Re:Sad but real

[phantomfive]

The reason for the US antipathy against Syria is because of Lebanon and Israel, but especially Lebanon. I don't think Syria has any real interest in attacking Israel (despite their words indicating otherwise; sometimes it is good for a dictator to maintain an enemy), but they have been known to cause serious problems in Lebanon and assassinate their politicians.

As for Cuba, I think they are more worried about the US attacking them (which is also not likely to happen). If you want to understand why the US keeps the embargo on Cuba, you have to realize that a large number of Cubans have risked their lives to escape the Castro regime, coming by boat across the Gulf of Mexico (have you ever wondered what it is in Cuba that they want to escape?). A lot of them have lived in the US long enough to vote, and they really want the downfall of Castro. Now, if you know anything about US politics, you will know that Florida is an important swing state (in the past few elections), and thus any president that angers the Cuban population living in Florida by lifting the embargo is taking his political life in his hands. We will see if Obama dares.

Re:Sad but real

[Xest]

"The reason for the US antipathy against Syria is because of Lebanon and Israel, but especially Lebanon. I don't think Syria has any real interest in attacking Israel (despite their words indicating otherwise; sometimes it is good for a dictator to maintain an enemy), but they have been known to cause serious problems in Lebanon and assassinate their politicians."

To be fair I don't disagree so much with the position on Syria as Syria absolutely does fund and arm Hezbollah and Hamas. My point with regards to Syria is that the position is somewhat hypocritical- Venezuela is more of a threat to peace than Syria overall, but Venezuela provides more oil to the US. Similarly it's also not as if the US itself hasn't funded terrorist groups in the past, either directly- i.e. arming the same Afghans they're fighting now against Russia, or indirectly- i.e. allowing US soil to be used as a fundraising and training ground for IRA terrorists who would attack it's ally, Britain, all to avoid angering the larger Irish community in the US and hence losing votes.

"If you want to understand why the US keeps the embargo on Cuba, you have to realize that a large number of Cubans have risked their lives to escape the Castro regime, coming by boat across the Gulf of Mexico (have you ever wondered what it is in Cuba that they want to escape?)."

This is the US argument certainly, and it's kept afloat in the US by the fact that very few Americans ever can visit because of the embargo. but in reality many Europeans and Canadians visit every year and see quite a different picture. Sure some are unhappy, but there are so many that were poor, but happy. I spent a fair bit of time off resort, because I was searching for some specific species of cactus (Melocactus harlowii and Melocactus matanzanus) and I found the locals both friendly and helpful. One guy, despite my horribly broken Spanish, took me around 2 miles to a population of Melocactus matanzanus- precisely what I was looking for! I'll admit I was a little scared being dragged off into the wilderness for so long by a random Cuban, but my fears were completely and utterly unfounded.

For the vast majority it's not political, it's because their country is so poor and there's is a better life in the US for them- it's no different to the reason many Mexicans similarly risk their lives to leave Mexico for the US in this respect. What makes it worse in this case though is that Cuba is so poor precisely because of the US embargo. If Cuba could trade with the US, it would be a thriving nation being right next door to you and having lots of fertile land. This alone would greatly improve the lives of Cubans. Sure some people that leave do hate Castro, and sure Cuba has some human rights violations- but more so than places like Venezuela, or ironically, even major US trading partners like Russia and China? Certainly not- at least Cuba just jails journalists it doesn't like, the Russian and Chinese governments have them outright assassinated.

The problem the US faces with Cuba now is that it's told itself and everyone else for so long that the embargo is there to try and pressure Cuba into regime change, which has clearly not worked, but they do not seem to want to lose faith. Lifting the embargo would be by far the best option, because it's almost certain that with increased wealth and hence and increasingly educated population, that things would change anyway. In fact, if American companies were allowed to operate there, this alone would help push change. Even more rediculous that Cuba was first to offer help after hurricane Katrina- a country well placed to help and with perhaps more experience than any other nation in dealing with hurricanes. The US turned down the offer, refusing to accept help from Cuba- yes, the US position on Cuba is so illogical that they'll even rather let their own citizens die than accept help from them.

At the end of the day, Cuba was the one nation in the Americas that the US failed to strong arm in the cold war, and America refuses to

Re:Sad but real

[phantomfive]

My point with regards to Syria is that the position is somewhat hypocritical-

A country which is made up of 300 million people has a position that is inconsistent? I'm shocked! Really, it is difficult for any large organization, or even a single person to be 100% consistent in what they do, so this is to be expected.

Venezuela is more of a threat to peace than Syria overall, but Venezuela provides more oil to the US.

Venezuela is a threat to the peace? You mean through their funding of FARC? Anyway the US doesn't need to provide economic pressure on Venezuela, the Venezuelans keep shooting themselves in the foot economically, most recently devaluing their currency and nationalizing anyone who raises prices as a result. If Chavez keeps on his current course, he will soon follow the common path of Latin American dictators.

If Cuba could trade with the US, it would be a thriving nation being right next door to you and having lots of fertile land.

I don't disagree that ending the embargo would be a good idea, but once again, enough Cuban-Americans oppose it that I really don't see it happening in the near future. I would be happy if I were wrong.

Sure some are unhappy, but there are so many that were poor, but happy. I spent a fair bit of time off resort, because I was searching for some specific species of cactus (Melocactus harlowii and Melocactus matanzanus) and I found the locals both friendly and helpful.

That sounds like a great experience. Foreign visitors to China also had great experiences during the cultural revolution, but that doesn't justify what was happening there. Surely there are happy people in Cuba, but they are not free. I think we can both agree that freedom is a good thing.

the US position on Cuba is probably one of the US' greatest injustices.

If the only reason Cuba is poor is because it can't trade with the US, that doesn't say much for communism, does it? The US has good goals with Cuba: to end communism and make the people free. The mechanisms used to reach this goal haven't always been the best, but the goal is a good one.

Re:Sad but real

[Xest]

"Venezuela is a threat to the peace? You mean through their funding of FARC?"

Absolutely, what Chavez is doing in Venezuela is turning a democracy into a dictatorship. One run by a leader who has maassively increased his nation's military expendature and has outright threatened war with neighbouring Colombia, as well as as you mention, providing a safe haven for the likes of FARC, effectively using them as a tool to perform war by proxy. Chavez is certainly damaging the Venezuelan economy but hasn't tanked it so far that he can't afford to keep spending on military equipment- largely because of US trading. If the US had a similar block on Venezuela as it did on Syria and Iran than Venezuela would've not been able to increase it's military expendature as it has. The reason this hasn't happened is because it would mean the price of oil would go up for the US and it simply does not want to pay that price.

"Surely there are happy people in Cuba, but they are not free. I think we can both agree that freedom is a good thing."

I think we agree freedom is a good thing, because it is a mindset shared by most people here. Unfortunately a lot of people do not put much value in freedom- this is why as a citizen of the UK I find myself feeling less and less comfy in my own country, because the majority of the population has no real interest in freedom and supports increased anti-terrorism legislation whatever the cost in freedom. Similarly, there are millions, arguably hundreds of millions of people in China who are happy with the government, despite their oppression. So whilst I'd like to see these people have more freedom because I think they'd appreciate it if they had it, I also realise that it's not their priority- they would much prefer to be able to move out of poverty than have freedom. Whilst I could be wrong, I have hope that freedom would follow on from that anyway.

"If the only reason Cuba is poor is because it can't trade with the US, that doesn't say much for communism, does it?"

I'm not sure it says anything about communism at all- many capitalist, democratic countries would fall into poverty equally quickly if they were put in a position that isolated them from the trading partners that are an ideal match to what they can produce and provide. There are similarly many poor democracies around. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with communism if it were the case that a good fair leader could be found to implement it, but the issue is that communist regimes are usually installed under a power hungry elite who are then further corrupted by the power. Effectively it is the leadership that corrupts a regime rather than a fundamental flaw in the system itself- Iran for example is a democracy, and contrary to popular belief even the supreme leader is accountable to the elected assembly of experts such that the whole system is democratically accountable to the very top, and yet the country has still had it's political system hijacked and corrupted by bad leadership.

"The US has good goals with Cuba: to end communism and make the people free. The mechanisms used to reach this goal haven't always been the best, but the goal is a good one."

I don't disagree it's a good goal, my issue is the fact that the US is in many ways keeping it artificially poorer than it need be. I believe that if they allowed trade with them and allowed the poverty issue to be relaxed somewhat that as the people there were able to receive a better funded education system, were given access to much modern technology, that they would find freedom in their own time.

Again, look at Iran, it is after all the educated, better off people that have been fighting for freedom and true democracy, whilst it is the poor that have been upholding Ahmadinejad and Khamenei's dictatorship.

I firmly believe freedom comes with good education, and good education needs to be financed. I would not be suprised if had the US had lifted the embargo 20 to 30 years ago if Cuba had not already by now have massively changed to be much more free and much more westernised much like many of the ex-USSR Eastern European nations have within that same time frame.

Re:Sad but real

[phantomfive]

If the US had a similar block on Venezuela as it did on Syria and Iran than Venezuela would've not been able to increase it's military expendature as it has. The reason this hasn't happened is because it would mean the price of oil would go up for the US and it simply does not want to pay that price.

That may be why Bush didn't do it, but Obama has been actively trying to appease Chavez, I don't know why. This has come at the expense of Honduras.

Similarly, there are millions, arguably hundreds of millions of people in China who are happy with the government, despite their oppression.

You are right: any dictatorship has to keep a good portion of the people happy. This is a basic Machiavellian principle. Most people in Russia were happy under Stalin, but that doesn't mean much to the millions who were sent to labor camps or killed for no real reason. If you make a website to help people whose kids were poisoned by formula manufactured by government factories, and then you get arrested for it, like happened recently in China, it won't mean much to you either. Keeping most of the people happy is in no way an indication of a good ruler.

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with communism if it were the case that a good fair leader could be found to implement it,

Indeed, Democracy and Communism seem like such a natural fit together (they both seek to empower the people), it's surprising that in practice communism has never come with Democracy, and always leads to strong dictatorship. I haven't been able to figure that one out yet.

Effectively it is the leadership that corrupts a regime rather than a fundamental flaw in the system itself

This is kind of a debate that went on in Europe since the time of Rome. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Dante....all tried to solve the political problem by imagining up the ideal king. It was a mistake: there can be no ideal king in the long term. Eventually you will end up with one who is cruel or evil or greedy who does his people wrong. Democracy is not perfect, but it gives the people the kind of government they deserve: it shifts responsibility for the country down onto the people who live there. That kind of responsibility is scary for people who've never felt it; Hobbes would have said it was insanity; but those who have tasted the freedom that comes with it never turn back.

I firmly believe freedom comes with good education, and good education needs to be financed. I would not be suprised if had the US had lifted the embargo 20 to 30 years ago if Cuba had not already by now have massively changed to be much more free and much more westernised much like many of the ex-USSR Eastern European nations have within that same time frame.

I am in favor of this experiment. Now go tell the Cuban-Americans.

Re:Sad but real

[lgw]

Doesn't matter they they were graduate students - that was his mistake in the first place. If you think that sort of restriction is silly don't work on military contracts. They're very clear about the fact that you will go to jail if you don't follow their arbitrary set of rules.

If you care, yank your projects

[onionman]

If you are an open source coder (as I am), and you are involved with a project on sourceforge (as I was until a couple minutes ago), just ask the principal maintainer to move it to a different site. If they don't, stop contributing. Or, if you really don't care, then just go on with business as usual.

Re:If you care, yank your projects

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Why not just mirror the page somewhere else?

Re:If you care, yank your projects

[aylons]

I have another idea: if you are a coder for a free software (as defined by FSF) hosted in sourcefourge, and the principal maintainer don't move it, copy it yourself and ask other developers to come. If you care, off course. It'll be a fork and a loss of strength, but I guess most contributors will still go with you to the other site.

Holy Crap! They're Right Next Door

[marcus]

Did Anyone Look at the Exclusion Lists?

There's a veritable population of excluded 'entities' right here in town!

Many have odd looking names like MAJIDA, AL KAYALI, ABDULAH, FADWA, etc.

Then there's the innocuous MYNET.NET, SYNAPTIX.NET, ...

So move then

[davidwr]

Relocate to another country.

GPL prohibits that, no?

[Anonymous Coward]

12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

Re:GPL prohibits that, no?

[phantomfive]

The GPL says, essentially, "if you compile this and distribute it to people, you also have to give them the source code." If they don't give the compiled version to people in Syria, they are under no obligation to give the source code. So it's ok.

don't waste your ideals on phantom threats

[circletimessquare]

the wise thing for sourceforge to do is simply agree to whatever the usa demands. and then its business as usual. which is: everything is available with no restrictions to anyone remotely familiar with a proxy server

enforcement is impossible, even for the usa within its own borders, so who fucking cares what the lawyers and bureaucrats and diplomats say? they've already been routed around

i'm not saying you shouldn't get upset at the arrogance and the audacity of the american demands, i'm saying a bully making demands without any actual ability to follow through on his threats is nothing you have to pay any respect to, and therefore nothing you should waste much effort or emotion on

you simply pay the asshole lip service, put a big smile on your face, say "yes" to whatever the asshole wants, and then its business as usual, which is: these laws mean nothing. all of the posturing and threats and demands mean nothing. there's NO ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE

they can't enforce any of it. its the internet age. this is not about exporting video game machines, which can be intercepted, its about the internet, which routes around everything

people: stop getting upset at idiots trying to enforce legal understandings from a previous technological era and just ingore them and their petty demands without any muscle behind them. they can't stop technological change. they are defunct, they just don't know it

don't waste your time getting upset at a paper tiger

Re:don't waste your ideals on phantom threats

[Xest]

Why would say Iranian and Syrian developers, of which there truly are some great people want to work on projects on a site that actively supports isolation of their homeland?

Why would anyone who appreciates the contribution these countries can make want to host a project on SF when it clearly puts profits ahead of the open source ideology of free access to source for everyone that it's meant to support?

But perhaps most prominently, for people outside the US, but using SF as their host, what message does it send to say European developers if SF is imposing a US embargo against Cuba on their project?

The Cuba one is particularly prominent as hatred of Cuba is a very American thing- here in Europe, and certainly over in Canada feelings towards Cuba seem to be similar to pretty much any other Atlantic island nation such as those in the Carribean- sure they have problems, but they're certainly not embargo worthy, particularly when the US has no similar embargo on the likes of Venezuela or China, which are guilty of far, far worse things. So European and Canadian contributors and projects for example are being forced to disallow access to countries like Cuba with which they have no argument if they choose to host on SF.

I'm not saying SF doesn't have the right to do what they've done, they're a company after all, nor am I saying you're wrong in that it's easy to work around on a technical level. What I'm saying though is that it raises serious questions about SF as a viable hosting platform if it takes this decision over considering legitimate ways to work around it such as overseas hosting. I do not think SF has done the right thing here, and would certainly not choose it for any of my projects now. Sometimes the message is important as the technical reality of the situation, and in this case, SF have sent entirely the wrong message IMO.

Law is counter to legislators' intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

This means users residing in countries on the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanction list, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria, may not post content to, or access content available through, SourceForge.net.

So basically -- help Iranian dissidents in their struggle against Islamofascist tyranny = get prosecuted by the Feds and go to prison as a possible traitor in your own country. Way to go, Congress. Way to go...

Google stops 'playing ball' with China...

[mmell]

http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/01/25/167208/Chinese-Human-Rights-Orgs-Hit-By-DDoS

Anybody but me see a correlation here?

Maybe Iceland

[janwedekind]

... beginning with tomorrow!

How typical..

[NiceGeek]

I don't see a single person who is complaining about this, offering to help fund moving SF.Net elsewhere.

Not so easy when you have to foot the bill, is it?

Re:How typical..

[pclminion]

You say it like finances are the only difficulty. Sourceforge is run and maintained by real people. You know, human beings with physical bodies, and perhaps families. These people would have to move their families to another country. I think you'd have to have a fanatical amount of idealism to do something like that. I certainly would not.

Re:How typical..

[Hurricane78]

Pff, a clone of their service is set up in a week. And the costs... to host a project, you’d have to pay, what, a couple of cents?
It’s really silly. Ask the project owners for generated traffic. It’s so low, everybody can pay it. Even the poorest of the poorest on the net. Like one cent to download a dozen big projects. A dollar for a yearly subscription to have a project hosted. Silly values.

Re:How typical..

[aylons]

Because they are not asking for funds. Simple as that. Actually, they didn't even cite lack of funds as a to not consider other solutions.

Sticking to your logic, I could say:

I don't see a single person who is complaining offering to have sex with the owners. It's not easy when your ass in the line, is it?

Link without the annoying bar

[VGPowerlord]

outlined the reasons behind the ban, now with 100% less obfuscation, link tracking, and annoying toolbar!

No, it doesn't

[l2718]

The GPL doesn't force you to distribute the code, or prohibit you from selecting recipients according to any criterion you wish. It only prohibits you from placing restrictions on what the recipients can do with the code after they get it from you. In other words, the GPL doesn't require SF-hosted projects to directly distribute their code in Syria. It only prohibits the projects from forbidding downstream recipients from distributing to Syrians, or from forbidding Syrians to run the code.

Failure of Censorship

[TiggertheMad]

Mod parent up, just because your assets are hosted in a neutral country, does not make you free from us law if you are a us company.

More over, suppose you move your servers and company somewhere else. Now, you are on the state department's hate list for doing business with US enemies, and have to deal with that. Worst case, your company could get blacklisted from the US and other western countries. Also, who is to say that wherever you go won't have similar restrictions? People don't like each other the world over.

Wouldn't the best plan be to host where you will reach the widest audience, and just be smug in knowing that the Internet has a tendency to rout around censorship? Let's be honest, just blocking a few IP ranges is just playing lip service to US law...

Sourceforge Proxy Server

[Hadur]

SF should lease some space in their datacenter for a server or two to be used as a proxy server to some other company. Make sure this proxy server is locked down to only offer SF - not the whole Internet. The additional bandwidth in doing so would be 0.

Keep the proxy anonymous and open. This way, you keep access to SF officially locked down, but the proxy server is still going to be accessible to the rest of the world.

I know it won't happen, but it would be nice to see SF take the stand based on its principles as an open source community member.

Re:Sourceforge Proxy Server

[Lehk228]

that sort of *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* violation is the best way to get your ass tossed into prison for a long time.

Re:Sourceforge Proxy Server

[webweave]

Look up what a proxy server is. This makes no sense at all.

First Amendment Violation?

[casings]

Why wouldn't this be considered a violation of the first amendment? (Not SF.net blocking, but the laws which that censorship is based).

Re:First Amendment Violation?

[neo00]

What if Americans wanted their intellectual artifacts (code) to reach people in those countries, does the us government have the right to silent them?

Re:First Amendment Violation?

[nschubach]

Rights have been squashed for many years now, quietly and silently by a lawyer-istic clause hunt. I'm sure someone decided that it was a matter of National Security, so freedom of speech to certain countries should be denied. Although, you are still free to say whatever you want. It's not like they are telling you that you can't work on the project here.

In effect, what you are saying is that we should all be able to buy and kind of radio transmitter and flood the airwaves with whatever we want to talk about on any band. The FCC regulations are a restriction on your freedom of speech in that manner. True speech freedom hasn't been acceptable for years.

Re:First Amendment Violation?

[Alex Belits]

The bill of rights only applies to citizens, and in some cases, residents of the United States. If you aren't one of us, our constitution does not afford you any protections from government idiocy.

There is absolutely nothing in Bill of Rights that applies to any person -- it applies to US government. In particular, it restricts what US government can do to toward a person -- ANY person.

Avoidance

[b4upoo]

There must be some legal way to bypass such laws. Perhaps having a foreign branch such that they can do what you can not do within the US would be sufficient. Freedom sometimes requires actions that people would not normally take.

A law that doesn't transfer well to the internet

[matzahboy]

The US export laws were created to hurt the countries that have horrible diplomatic relations with the US. If the US and its allies don't trade with those countries, those countries' economies will fall (in theory) and they will have to negotiate with us. However, these laws don't really transfer well to open source software. Yes, the people in those countries should be allowed to access sf software. But the law is the law and there isn't much that sf can do. It would also be very difficult to try to reform these laws to account for open source software, since there would be a ton of loopholes. Also, this is not a first ammendment violation or any kind of censorship. These laws block exports of products to those countries. There is no problem allowing them to view your website or see information. But giving them software to download violates the export laws. For example, Wikipedia has no problems with the export law. It is allowed to teach the countries on the export list. But that is because Wikipedia is only giving them information, not software.

Devil's Advocate

[istartedi]

To play Devil's advocate for a minute:

1. Why these laws? Because the export restrictions don't do a proper job of distinquishing between tangible property and software.

2. Why obey them? To avoid the government punishing you.

It may be difficult to draft a law against, say, industrial espionage to hostile nations (which also involves intagilbe property) without also including information that isn't confidential.

While the current law leads to the aforementioned silliness, real perpetrators of industrial espionage and/or the aiding of hostile nations are less likely to get off due to some subtle distinction regarding the type of intagible property they transferred. IANAL; it would be interesting to here from one regarding how the law might be re-written to avoid this silliness. We could expempt providers of softwares that are generally available... but then you get bogged down in legal definitions for "generally available"... see? It's easy to criticize from the armchair... but oh so fun, and I do it too.

Who uses sourceforge anymore?

[DelitaTheFridge]

Github is where it's at.

Re:Who uses sourceforge anymore?

[Eunuchswear]

(Maybe I'm looking for a wooosh?)

whois github.com
...
Registrant:
  Thomas Werner
  3717 Sky Haven Ln
  Oceanside, California 92056
  United States
...

doesn't fix the problem.

Re:A law that doesn't transfer well to the interne

[casings]

What is software if not information? Binaries are just sequences of 1's and 0's and the source is obviously just text. Your distinction of what makes SF.net different from Wikipedia doesn't really hold water (even if the US govt think it does).

Why not move em

[butlerdi]

Vanuatu or some other place may be a good idea. Get everything out of the US and Europe.

Re:Why not move em

[idontgno]

Yes. How about Christmas Island?

The upside is that no export controls government employee savvy enough to recognize a sofware forge will willing click on a ".cx" link.

It's quite ridiculous in the first place...

[strangeintp]

It's quite ridiculous in the first place that the US gov't would attempt to selectively block access to information available on the WORLD WIDE WEB. It might be an annoyance, but it's not like it's really going to keep anybody from getting it, if they really want it.

Re:It's quite ridiculous in the first place...

[webweave]

The US gov't does not do the blocking, they expect the people who think they live in the what they tell you is the most free country on the planet. Those claimers of ultimate freedom expect the American public to do as they are told and get this work for free removing the freedoms of others. That's what's ridiculous.

And do you what to know what happens if you don't follow orders?

  The Largest Street Gang In America

game industry

[Lord Ender]

They should stand up for their ideals the same way the video game industry does: a checkbox. Use the "click here if you're under 18" method.

"[x] I am a resident of Syria, Iran, North Korea..."

"We're sorry, SourceForge is not available to you persuant US code bla bla bla"

Re:Syria Supports Hezbollah

[neo00]

Can you remind me when was the last time the US was attacked by a Syrian terrorist? How come Syria sponsors terrorism but Saudi Arabia does not?
Here are some interesting numbers your government doesn't want you to know

Use Git and Github!

[janwedekind]

US censorship is yet another reason to use distributed version control systems! If the US or your own country blocks access, just push your changes some place else.

Standing for Something

[Velska1]

I think it may be good that SF.net abides the law. There are too many people who think that "open source" is all about breaking the law. That is, people crack copy protections, passwords etc. and some thing the whole community is about that, 'coz that's what they hear.

Now they see that the community is not about breaking the law, it's about making software.

Also, I think this may give to some a reason to perhaps rethink certain laws that restrict commerce and free exchange of ideas.

Playing with fire

[westlake]

It rubs pretty much everyone at Slashdot the wrong way so why don't we all chip in to create a mirror site or something based outside the US?

How to you propose to do this without exposing every contributor to prosecution for violation of US export controls?

Re:Playing with fire

[wizardforce]

without exposing every contributor to prosecution for violation of US export controls?

If each of us contribute a dollar to a common fund based outside the US and that fund is used to build a server farm outside of the US's jurisdiction then how do you propose that the US prosecutes even a tiny percentage of the contributors? I would imagine that chargin two million Slashdotters with violating US export restrictions would be fairly difficult to make stick.

Re:Playing with fire

[Lehk228]

No, but keeping the information on file for when any contributor or contributors become a thorn in the side of an Important Person(TM) would be far from impossible or unheard of. Say 5 or 6 years down the line your new software company is succdessfully kicking the ass of a company owned by the brother in law of $FEDERAL_AGENT

Seas between US and Canada

[Thundersnatch]

These sure look like seas to me...

Re:Seas between US and Canada

[MakinBacon]

In order for a body of water to be considered a sea, it must be composed of saltwater. The Great Lakes are composed of freshwater.

Re:Seas between US and Canada

[Thundersnatch]

What about the Great Salt Lake? Or the Caspian Sea? (hint: one is salty, the other isn't). I live a few blocks from Lake Michigan, and just call it "the ocean" like my two-year-old.

Sidebar for covetous Southern Californians: no, you cannot have any of our trillions of cubic kilometers of cool delicious freshwater. You chose to move to a desert with 30 million other lemmings, and are suprised that water is a problem? Stop whining about water pipelines and move back to the snow you pansies.

Re:Seas between US and Canada

[clone53421]

What about the Great Salt Lake? Or the Caspian Sea? (hint: one is salty, the other isn't).

Um, that’s not 100% accurate...

Due to the current inflow of fresh water, the Caspian Sea is a fresh-water lake in its northern portions. It is more saline on the Iranian shore, where the catchment basin contributes little flow. Currently, the mean salinity of the Caspian is one third that of the Earth's oceans. The Garabogazköl embayment, which dried up when water flow from the main body of the Caspian was blocked in the 1980s but has since been restored, routinely exceeds oceanic salinity by a factor of 10.

What if they refused to obey?

[ElusiveJoe]

I always wondered, what would happen if someone refused to obey these stupid US laws about Iran and Cuba . Would he be arrested as a 'traitor' or even as a 'terrorist'? What if he wasn't a US citizen? How can a country, valuing freedom of speech and democracy so much, place such restrictions on its citizens? Why information censoring in China is considered 'bad' and in US - 'good'?

Re:What if they refused to obey?

[nedlohs]

Possibly nothing, possibly they would find themselves in a great deal of legal trouble (if someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to make an example of them).

If he wasn't a US citizen then there's less risk as long as he doesn't visit or transit through US territory. Since the US has a reputation for nabbing people in airports - see owners of non-US gambling web sites and Russian software programmers as examples.

It isn't censorship, in the sense that they aren't stopping their own people from getting whatever it is. They are stopping people from countries they have trade embargoes against.

Re:What if they refused to obey?

[PPH]

It depends on who yu are and how you go about circumventing these laws. If your just a little guy, and the Feds decide to make an example of you, you're screwed. If you are a large corporation and you subcontract development of your products to a country not bound by these laws and then your subcontractor provides these named individuals/countries with access, game on.

The URL minus the annoying ow.ly

[RonVNX]

http://sourceforge.net/blog/clarifying-sourceforgenets-denial-of-site-access-for-certain-persons-in-accordance-with-us-law/

US Law Extraterritorial Only If You Let 'Em

[cmholm]

Because they are blocking "the enemy" outside the borders of US. US law only works in the US... politicians do however forget this detail and try to expand US laws to other countries.

IMO, this is a simplistic view. "Extraterritorial" laws only work with the cooperation of other nations. As long as a good bilateral relationship with the US is considered important enough to acquiesce to US policies, then a US law can have effective reach. If not, then not.

How can I ...

[Skapare]

... also block all the people on the list?

This is another event in an Internet cold war

[beachdog]

Well I wonder what on sourceforge is worth blocking? And why apply the blocking to just a few countries?
The answer is, almost nothing on slashdot is worth blocking and the countries matter very little.

Look at this event in the context of the "Google considering leaving China" blog entry earlier this week.

The US government has very few tools for dealing with the alleged organized, systematic and large scale theft of data and email that was mentioned in the Google blog entry.

That same blog entry contained a link to a US Government position paper. That US position paper alleges the Chinese have a philosophy of Internet warfare.

Other articles describe the observed practice, they use teams, they systematically penetrate individual user's systems, they have download lists, they construct staging areas, they build CD size archive files. With this kind of stuff going on, no wonder Google didn't want to hang around and get hacked more.

Blocking sourceforge to the existing list of international bad player countries is a trial or demonstration. Several governments around the world are watching this American trial maneuver.

Right now I am reading: The unconquerable world : power, nonviolence, and the will of the people by Jonathan Schell and I simply wish I could understand the forces driving these conflicts on and over and about the Internet.

With these militaristic morons prowling the Internet, I think a prudent personal need is to have a really well hardened home gateway and at least one really hard to hack home system.

In my journal I discuss a comparison of three open source distributions as a base for setting up a relatively secure home desktop. Conclusion: use the Linux or FreeBSD you know best. Unresolved: how to secure the browser.

Unintended consequences

[Eunuchswear]

True story:

I work on a sourceforge hosted Linux HA project. Some guy in Cuba wanted to use it, but because of these restrictions he gave up and is now using FreeBSD.

Is that really what we want?

US have NO right on MY projects

[pchev]

I am really upset with that and seriously consider moving my projects from SF to another service hosted in a free country. My first reaction was "no problem, anyone know how to use a proxy" but this is more than that! They try to impose me who can get and use my own software I choice to released with a GPL license. This is clearly a GPL violation we cannot accept. If we are not living in the US the simplest solution is to go elsewhere and pray for the poor US developer who can no longer use the GPL license.

you're being a hypocrite

[circletimessquare]

you dislike the american censorial attitude towards cuba, but you lend no criticism to the cuban censorial attitude towards their own people

i can't take someone seriously who is so angry at american crimes in this world, but doesn't have anything to say about the much more horrid crimes of autocratic regimes against their own people

the american policy towards cuba does not hurt cuba. the cuban regime's policy towards cubans hurts cuba. you do understand and agree with that, right?

therefore, america has every right to want to have nothing to do with cuba as long as its regime is so vile. europe has chosen to still deal with cuba. ok, that's your choice. i would say that the european choice is the wrong one, simply because you are lending support to a regime which gives its own people no rights

you are familiar with the crimes of china against its people, you are familiar with the crimes of iran against its people. and you understand why europe modifies its relationships towards these countries due to these violations. then why don't you see that cuba is the same type of vile autocratic regime that affords its own citizens no rights? and furthermore, why do you believe the lie that it is the usa hurting the cubans, rather than seeing, as with the iranian regime or the chinese regime, that its actually the cuban regime that is at fault here?

and if you see that, you'd stand against the vile cuban regime, and support the notion that europe should not deal with an illegitimate government that abuses its own people

Software can be a munition... but...

[MikeRT]

A country that can build weapons and assault vehicles on par with ours has the engineering talent to write its own software that can complement those systems. To a large extent, the real problem is not the threat of them learning how to make their own real-time OS or modify Linux to (probably badly) guide a cruise missile or ICBM, but them learning the proprietary secrets that lead to the manufacturing knowledge of building the actual hardware (which is where the real threat exists).

Henri's theses on censorship :

[mhenriday]

Chinese censorship bad, US censorship good (or at least acceptable). All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.... Henri

Hosting Outside the USA

[RAMMS EIN]

Isn't it time we started using hosting services located outside the USA? This is not the only restriction that the US impose. I would imagine a hosting service could serve its community better if it were based in a less restrictive jurisdiction. What jurisdictions are good for hosting software and information, and what hosting services operate out of such jurisdictions?

Parent does not deserver troll mod

[mjwx]

Can you remind me when was the last time the US was attacked by a Syrian terrorist? How come Syria sponsors terrorism but Saudi Arabia does not? Here are some interesting numbers your government doesn't want you to know

But then again it's easier to censor then challenge your ideas.

Counter productive for freedom in the world

[zix619]

During Iran June elections unrest, Youtube, and Twitter were integral part of the democratic movement in Iran. By disseminating the info and relying the opposition they helped fight Iranian totalitarian regime, and the repeated efforts of Iranian government to cut even the Internet and censor the access to the Internet says much about how afraid they are from the free Internet. Denying people in these countries access to the open software they can use to spread the Internet and related technology, therefore indirectly spreading democracy in their countries, and fight against their totalitarian regimes seems to be completely counter productive? I wonder how this could help anybody? How this can specially help freedom in the world? Specially, that the governments in these countries controling the Internet access can work around this control spending a couple of hundreds of dollars buying access in any place else in the world, be it China or elsewhere in the middle east! For Twitter, US administration even asked Twitter to help, can anybody in US administration understands the issue and make some amendments?