|
Posted by David J. Hennessy on February 8, 2010, 2:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Public- and developer-backlash against SourceForge's recent draconian
decision to completely block entire countries from accessing its servers
has led to a new policy. Now, it's up to the project admin to indicate
whether or not their software is subject to US export prohibition.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/08/1620238/SourceForge-Removes-Blanket-Blocking
--
David H.
|
|
Posted by crankypuss on February 9, 2010, 3:29 am
Please log in for more thread options
"David J. Hennessy"
show/hide quoted text
>Public- and developer-backlash against SourceForge's recent draconian
>decision to completely block entire countries from accessing its servers
>has led to a new policy. Now, it's up to the project admin to indicate
>whether or not their software is subject to US export prohibition.
>http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/08/1620238/SourceForge-Removes-Blanket-Blocking
David, I don't know that I consider SourceForge's action to block the
forbidden countries to be "draconian". They want to survive first,
make nice for others second, like pretty much everybody else. And I
don't see them as having backed down so much as put an immediate block
in place while they implemented something that has hopes of being
manageable. iow, don't paint SourceForge all black and leave the US
Government all white or you're likely to be missing out on some shades
of gray. imo of course.
Thanks for posting the link, it's nice to stay up to date and I seldom
have time for keeping up to date.
--
no aluminum siding offers today
|
|
Posted by David J. Hennessy on February 9, 2010, 2:55 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On 2/9/10 12:29 AM, crankypuss wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> "David J. Hennessy"
>> Public- and developer-backlash against SourceForge's recent draconian
>> decision to completely block entire countries from accessing its servers
>> has led to a new policy. Now, it's up to the project admin to indicate
>> whether or not their software is subject to US export prohibition.
>>
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/08/1620238/SourceForge-Removes-Blanket-Blocking
show/hide quoted text
> David, I don't know that I consider SourceForge's action to block the
> forbidden countries to be "draconian". They want to survive first,
> make nice for others second, like pretty much everybody else. And I
> don't see them as having backed down so much as put an immediate block
> in place while they implemented something that has hopes of being
> manageable. iow, don't paint SourceForge all black and leave the US
> Government all white or you're likely to be missing out on some shades
> of gray. imo of course.
> Thanks for posting the link, it's nice to stay up to date and I seldom
> have time for keeping up to date.
I do see your point. The thing is (which I think most people hadn't
realized, when polarizing this debate) is that this wasn't something the
US government compelled SourceForge to do. There was no recent change in
law, as far as I have been able to determine. The law requires notifying
a certain bureau in the government if you're providing software for
download that contains (or links to) encryption algorithms. Then, out of
the blue, SourceForge elected, all on their own, to implement a total
block for entire nations -- even if it meant locking someone out of a
project that they themselves created. Sanctions are, strictly speaking,
an act of war, and a corporation took it upon itself to enforce
political sanctions, while presenting the false illusion that the
government was responsible. This, I think, is pretty draconian. I doubt
that blocking free software downloads would lead to any kind of serious
incident, but it certainly doesn't help matters.
If anything, the biggest lesson I learned is that the non-discrimination
portion of the OSI definition is *not* an explicit part of the GPL. I
intend to research licenses quite carefully, and make a better choice in
the future.
Somehow, from my POV, the public debate contained the assumption that
this was something the US government was requiring. I even had that
impression at first. SourceForge's own explanation seemed to try to
strongly imply this, as well, thus passing the buck. However, myself and
thousands of others wrote to them, quite irate, and closed our accounts.
I recently received an email response, indicating that their policy is
now essentially an automated return to the pre-existing policy. I'm
upset that they tried to do this, but it does make me feel good to know
that someone in their organization was keeping a finger on the pulse,
and realized that they had made a mistake. It's really nice to know that
at least one big corp cares what we think.
(On the other hand, Steve Jobs hasn't replied to my objections to the
iPad... I'm not holding my breath.)
--
David H.
|
|
Posted by crankypuss on February 10, 2010, 3:07 am
Please log in for more thread options
"David J. Hennessy"
show/hide quoted text
>On 2/9/10 12:29 AM, crankypuss wrote:
>> "David J. Hennessy"
>>> Public- and developer-backlash against SourceForge's recent draconian
>>> decision to completely block entire countries from accessing its servers
>>> has led to a new policy. Now, it's up to the project admin to indicate
>>> whether or not their software is subject to US export prohibition.
>>>
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/08/1620238/SourceForge-Removes-Blanket-Blocking
show/hide quoted text
>> David, I don't know that I consider SourceForge's action to block the
>> forbidden countries to be "draconian". They want to survive first,
>> make nice for others second, like pretty much everybody else. And I
>> don't see them as having backed down so much as put an immediate block
>> in place while they implemented something that has hopes of being
>> manageable. iow, don't paint SourceForge all black and leave the US
>> Government all white or you're likely to be missing out on some shades
>> of gray. imo of course.
>> Thanks for posting the link, it's nice to stay up to date and I seldom
>> have time for keeping up to date.
>I do see your point. The thing is (which I think most people hadn't
>realized, when polarizing this debate) is that this wasn't something the
>US government compelled SourceForge to do. There was no recent change in
>law, as far as I have been able to determine. The law requires notifying
>a certain bureau in the government if you're providing software for
>download that contains (or links to) encryption algorithms. Then, out of
>the blue, SourceForge elected, all on their own, to implement a total
>block for entire nations -- even if it meant locking someone out of a
>project that they themselves created.
Isn't it possible that even though the law (which I happened to know
about from the early '90s, though it might have been updated since)
isn't new, that it was something they were blissfully unaware of until
they ran into some incidental mention of it? I don't know about you,
but I can imagine that as being a "holy shit!" moment for them. I
don't know one way or the other, but a little panic on their part
doesn't seem entirely unwarranted. And of course nobody wants to
admit they've been running around with their pants down without
knowing it, so they'd put as good a face on it as they could in a
hurry, while they're waiting for their lawyer(s?) to figure it out, if
they're large enough to have lawyers insted of needing to scurry off
and find one.
show/hide quoted text
> Sanctions are, strictly speaking,
>an act of war, and a corporation took it upon itself to enforce
>political sanctions, while presenting the false illusion that the
>government was responsible. This, I think, is pretty draconian. I doubt
>that blocking free software downloads would lead to any kind of serious
>incident, but it certainly doesn't help matters.
>If anything, the biggest lesson I learned is that the non-discrimination
>portion of the OSI definition is *not* an explicit part of the GPL. I
>intend to research licenses quite carefully, and make a better choice in
>the future.
I hate reading that stuff too, but it's kind of necessary from time to
time.
show/hide quoted text
>Somehow, from my POV, the public debate contained the assumption that
>this was something the US government was requiring. I even had that
>impression at first. SourceForge's own explanation seemed to try to
>strongly imply this, as well, thus passing the buck. However, myself and
>thousands of others wrote to them, quite irate, and closed our accounts.
>I recently received an email response, indicating that their policy is
>now essentially an automated return to the pre-existing policy. I'm
>upset that they tried to do this, but it does make me feel good to know
>that someone in their organization was keeping a finger on the pulse,
>and realized that they had made a mistake. It's really nice to know that
>at least one big corp cares what we think.
>(On the other hand, Steve Jobs hasn't replied to my objections to the
>iPad... I'm not holding my breath.)
Whatever, dude. I just hope that if my turn in the barrel comes up
show/hide quoted text
you'll cut me a little slack. <g>
--
no aluminum siding offers today
|
|
Posted by David J. Hennessy on February 10, 2010, 3:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On 2/10/10 12:07 AM, crankypuss wrote:
show/hide quoted text
<snip>
> Whatever, dude. I just hope that if my turn in the barrel comes up
Are you kidding? I've already got my entire post prepared. I just left
all the nouns and verbs blank. :-P
--
David H.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Your thoughts on SourceForge blocking certain countries? | February 3, 2010, 4:48 pm |
| Re: OT: Victory in Harefield | May 13, 2005, 4:32 am |
| Re: OT: Victory in Harefield | May 13, 2005, 6:35 am |
| Re: OT: Victory in Harefield | May 13, 2005, 9:09 am |
| Blocking an intruder | March 3, 2006, 1:50 pm |
| .htaccess blocking | March 13, 2006, 1:57 am |
| IP blocking by server? | September 2, 2006, 10:34 am |
| image blocking | November 20, 2006, 6:23 am |
| Blocking Pages | March 9, 2008, 11:02 pm |
| Help blocking a stats spammer? | March 25, 2006, 9:18 am |
|
XML Sitemap
>decision to completely block entire countries from accessing its servers
>has led to a new policy. Now, it's up to the project admin to indicate
>whether or not their software is subject to US export prohibition.
>http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/08/1620238/SourceForge-Removes-Blanket-Blocking