I'm not sure what list this is really appropriate for, so apologies if this is the wrong forum. I noticed that the Fedora EULA still include notes about export restrictions, specifically:
"... understands that certain of the software are subject to export controls under the U.S. Commerce Departments Export Administration Regulations (EAR) ..."
Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. are all restricted areas. Out of curiosity how is that being enforced on the Fedora infrastructure end, and how is that restriction handling passed to mirrors? Is each mirror required to implement their own set of restrictions? Does a Fedora mirror server in Canada (or some other non-restricted country) sidestep that issue? If so, doesn't that basically make the EULA clause moot (from a once the dam is broken kinda perspective)?
Jason
2007/1/31, Jason Corley jason.corley@gmail.com:
I'm not sure what list this is really appropriate for, so apologies if this is the wrong forum. I noticed that the Fedora EULA still include notes about export restrictions, specifically:
"... understands that certain of the software are subject to export controls under the U.S. Commerce Departments Export Administration Regulations (EAR) ..."
Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. are all restricted areas. Out of curiosity how is that being enforced on the Fedora infrastructure end, and how is that restriction handling passed to mirrors? Is each mirror required to implement their own set of restrictions? Does a Fedora mirror server in Canada (or some other non-restricted country) sidestep that issue? If so, doesn't that basically make the EULA clause moot (from a once the dam is broken kinda perspective)?
As I understand it the Free Media project does ship Fedora discs to Cuba. Is there any refinement on this blanket export restriction -- which packages are actually affected? Perhaps we need a 'restricted' Yum repository ala Debian's non-US.
As for a Fedora mirror server elsewhere, the source code = free speech interpretation of the First Amendment would seem to indicate that if the mirror rebuilds its own binaries then reexporting is not subject to US laws anymore, but if not then it might be. Unless the crypto-related software is always built on a Fedora build server in a third country? (I recall that in the past some software are available only from redhat.de for this reason)
Regards,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:18:00PM -0500, Michel Salim wrote:
curiosity how is that being enforced on the Fedora infrastructure end, and how is that restriction handling passed to mirrors? Is each mirror required to implement their own set of restrictions? Does a Fedora mirror server in Canada (or some other non-restricted country) sidestep that issue? If so, doesn't that basically make the EULA clause moot (from a once the dam is broken kinda perspective)?
With my Red Hat firmly *off* I can perhaps comment on the situation a little.
US companies and citizens are in the rather peculiar state of actually being forbidden from dealing with some countries or even visiting certain of them (as opposed to merely being forbidden to deal commercially with or sell "dual use" products to them). Cuba is one of these for rather political reasons. As a US company Red Hat is obliged to follow US law, ditto US citizens.
In other jurisdictions the laws vary - restrictions like the US one are very rare but some countries do count crypto as stuff not to be shipped to their particular list of "rogue states". So if you run a mirror check the local law.
In other states you may actually be committing an offence if you enforce the US regulations, as it falls under various kinds of "racial discrimination" laws.
And Canada has its own collection of laws to do with Cuba designed to maximally screw up any attempt by the USA to enforce US law on Canadian companies. Not sure how that affects Canadian mirrors.
Every piece of software has ugly corners people prefer not to touch or look into, export law often seems to be one of the legal equivalents because it used as a political tool.
Alan
On 1/31/07, Jason Corley jason.corley@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what list this is really appropriate for, so apologies if this is the wrong forum. I noticed that the Fedora EULA still include notes about export restrictions, specifically:
"... understands that certain of the software are subject to export controls under the U.S. Commerce Departments Export Administration Regulations (EAR) ..."
Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. are all restricted areas. Out of curiosity how is that being enforced on the Fedora infrastructure end, and how is that restriction handling passed to mirrors? Is each mirror required to implement their own set of restrictions? Does a Fedora mirror server in Canada (or some other non-restricted country) sidestep that issue? If so, doesn't that basically make the EULA clause moot (from a once the dam is broken kinda perspective)?
Jason
So wait. Are you trying to bind Fedora as an American distro? I thought Linux was without borders. If this is the case I am going to have to look at my ticket pass for Fedora again. I was of the opinion there was no need for politics here in Fedora.
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 19:37 -0600, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On 1/31/07, Jason Corley jason.corley@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what list this is really appropriate for, so apologies if this is the wrong forum. I noticed that the Fedora EULA still include notes about export restrictions, specifically:
"... understands that certain of the software are subject to export controls under the U.S. Commerce Departments Export Administration Regulations (EAR) ..."
Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. are all restricted areas. Out of curiosity how is that being enforced on the Fedora infrastructure end, and how is that restriction handling passed to mirrors? Is each mirror required to implement their own set of restrictions? Does a Fedora mirror server in Canada (or some other non-restricted country) sidestep that issue? If so, doesn't that basically make the EULA clause moot (from a once the dam is broken kinda perspective)?
Jason
So wait. Are you trying to bind Fedora as an American distro? I thought Linux was without borders. If this is the case I am going to have to look at my ticket pass for Fedora again. I was of the opinion there was no need for politics here in Fedora.
Linux might be w/o borders but red hat is a US company and while this isn't about politics it is about law. So while "Linux" might not be stopped if someone violates the law red hat sure could be and therefore must comply with the laws of the country it occupies as its home.
-sv
-
Alan Cox -
Arthur Pemberton -
Jason Corley -
Michel Salim -
seth vidal