Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> Voting has closed. Here are the results:
>
> +1 votes:
> Hanson Char <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Aaron Smuts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Rony G. Flatscher <[EMAIL PR
We are an US comp^Wcharity and the code is released through this US
organization. So we (as in ASF) are responsible for it and US law
probably applies.
Best would be to take this to legal-discuss.
(Curiosity: Where do you want to ship this? :-) )
Best regards
Henning
O
Ortwin Glück wrote:
> As none of us developers is US resident
Isn't it quite absurd anyway, that code that wasn't written in the US in the
first place, and just happens to reside on an SVN server in California, falls
under their export regulations? What about setting up Apache SVN on Caiman
Isla
Alfonso,
As none of us developers is US resident, we are no experts on US law and their
export control regulation. Please refer to the appropriate authority to obtain
qualified information.
All I can see is that on
http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm
it says under "If Your Item
Hi Ortwin
since HTTP Client is not classified how can I export
it towards embargoed countries?
Cheers
Alfonso
--- Ortwin Glück <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
> alfonso veneziano wrote:
> > Hi
> > I would like to know the ECCN numbers (Export
> control
> > classification numbers) of the Jakarta
On 05/06/07, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
content as "acceptable" so that we can understand what you want to have?
Thanks
Henning
I thought I already had done so:
On 27/05/07, se
Could you create an example on how you would consider the structure and
content as "acceptable" so that we can understand what you want to have?
Thanks
Henning
sebb schrieb:
> On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> > Sorry for the delay i
On 04/06/07, Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sebb wrote:
> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
> The NOTICE file is much clearer, and the Xerox license is identified,
> so I am withdrawing my -1.
>
> When the rules have been clarified, the next release can implement any
> changes if ne
