On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:56:07AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Certainly there are instances where civil disobedience is called for, > > > but violating export regulations is perhaps not the best choice. > > > > And the same logic can be applied to SPI and therefore Debian Project. > > Or, maybe not? > > Had the project deliberately broken the law, I suspect we would not have > the vibrant project that we have today.
You misunderstood me. By providing a set of free software which by definition can be used for any purpose (including, but not limited to creation of, say, firearms and "controlled substances") to any part of the world (including the countries embargoed by US) Debian Project (and SPI as a rightholder) currently violates US export control laws. Or not? > > > Also, the article which you linked explicitly states that they are > > > working with regulators to help them understand that GitHub providing > > > services in sanctioned markets actually *supports* the US government's > > > foreign policy objectives of free flow of information and free speech. > > > > And it also mentions, quoting: > > > > Users are responsible for ensuring that the content they develop and > > share on GitHub.com complies with the U.S. export control laws, > > including the EAR and the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations > > (ITAR). > > What's your point? GitHub TOS directly contradict the very definition of free software. No more, no less. > Similar dervices with data centers and hosting in > Europe have similar disclaimers stating that users are responsible for > GDPR compliance. In fact, disclaimers of the like are rather common. > For example, like this one from the MOTD on one of my Debian servers: > > "Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent > permitted by applicable law." > > That could easily be rewritten as: > > "Users are reponsible for anything they do with this collection of > software packages and for making sure that its use complies with > applicable laws in the applicable jurisdiction(s)." I'm not a layer (and probably neither are you), yet I see a loophole here already. The "applicable jurisdiction(s)" term. Is it local jurisdiction? Is it jurisdiction of the country the user is citizen of? Reco
