Google does the same:
http://code.google.com/projecthosting/terms.html
Pretty ridiculous in this day and age.
http://code.google.com/projecthosting/terms.html
Pretty ridiculous in this day and age.
I think some people live in a fairy tale world. North Korea, for example, recently sunk a South Korean ship killing 41 people. There really are bad people in the world.
Personally, I think the Cuba issue is legacy and it's probably time to resolve it. The fear of communism is long gone. Now I think it's just a matter of a bunch of rich voters in Florida who want their nationalized land back, which probably isn't going to happen.
As far as North Korea, um... so, when the US kills 25 Afghans at a wedding ("oops! my video-game like predator drone readout made it look like they were definitely terrorists") what does that mean? I guess France should stop exporting Notepad++ to the US. Correct?
No, the issue is whether 'exporting' a text editor to N. Korea would REALLY make any difference. Perhaps the clueless, bribed, caviar-stuffed and prostitute-sucked morons in Congress think so, but most of them can hardly even send an email.
Think about this for a few milliseconds before ranting. How would you write a law that blocked the bad "exports" while allowing the good "exports" through? It's much less work to write and administer to just to block them all to countries like North Korea.
1) Can you point to scientific evidence, or even a carefully-reasoned argument, that blocking U.S.-hosted free software from "rogue" states like North Korea, Syria, or Iran either A) is a meaningful deterrent to the governments of such states or B) has a desirable effect on the citizens of those states?
2) Do you think it's likely that the people with power to make decisions about this actually thought rationally about any evidence or reasoning?
My provisional answers are 1) Not likely and 2) Fat chance.
If the North Korean regime really wants to download notepad++ it's as good as impossible for anyone to stop them. All they need is a proxy in another country. Or someone travelling with a USB stick, or just two people using dropbox on either side of the border. Code is very different from physical good in this regard.
Can you find North Korea on this map?
http://paradoxoff.com/north-korea-night-map.html
I bet there aren't too many hackers staying up until dawn hacking on Notepad++. Why does a country with no electricity want to be on this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_wea...
People in power, or anyone else for that matter, really don't have the time to debate the finer points of the export laws (which includes free software), so it's probably better that they just made a simple law that even developers can understand.
Someday, this will go away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone
Then software developers can find another problem that they can solve from the comfort of their Aeron chair.
For all I know, not a single man in North Korea knows what the hell Notepad++ is. Maybe no North Korean citizen would have any use for any U.S.-hosted software at all. If that's true, then isn't that yet another reason not to restrict it?
Is it really too complicated to say: "Data is not subject to export control laws, unless it's in category X or Y (like cryptosystems are, under current law) in which case the following rules apply: so-and-so." I think it's disingenuous to suggest that officials writing export laws "don't have the time" to make any distinctions on such a large class of exports. Our federal laws are rarely guilty of having insufficient detail.
Additionally, I'd reiterate what other people have already mentioned, which is that if the (yet to be justified) goal is actually to stop these entities from using all this software, the goal is impossible. The law burdens U.S. hosts as much as it burdens foreigners, who can just use a proxy or a mirror in another country.
So, other than software that contains encryption, what software is restricted?
Blocking export of closed source/commercial software is more realistic, but still, the targets can always pirate or obtain what they want through a third party.
You do realize that the US killings were an accident, correct? Friendly fire...kind of like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman
Here's a friendly fire list on Wikipedia. Most probably don't get cataloged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
So, it's safe to assume it will happen again in every current and future war.
The point is that wars are very ugly and imprecise. Now, I'm pretty sure that it is a war crime to intentionally kill innocent civilians, so yes, if the US starts doing this, I expect the rest of the world place embargos.
At any rate, you are free to leave your comfort zone and make the world a better place. It's easy to complain and have all the answers. It's an entirely different matter to effect change. I'm sure at least half of those morons in Congress would have nailed you to the wall for making such a flawed case trying to prove your point.
[Edit] I guess I only focused on his first statement. I addressed the common statement "Why does it hurt to allow the export of a text editor" in another post. In short, it's easier to make a blanket law. gcc, for example, could be used for weapons software development. Emacs? Well, it can run a version of Lisp! :-) Notepad++? Never used it. Anyway, who has time to evaluate every piece of software for export restrictions. Yes, people can get around them anyway, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be speed bumps.
Ugh. We should forbid political posts on Hacker News. Such a time suck...
A simpler statement would have sufficed - say, "I believe these laws are too broad and should be rethought, as the impact of violating it in this case would be negligible." Civility is key.
If North Korea (as a government) wants something from Sourceforge's site, will blocking access to the site really prevent them from doing so for more than a second?
Meanwhile, if a North Korean wants something from Sourceforge's site, why are you blocking it? Similar to above, they can still get it, but all you're doing is punishing the civilians, most of whom have little to nothing to do with the government. How is this helpful?
Now, which of those two is the US Government at war with?
They were implying the law is ridiculous. Complying is the cost of existence in a nation.
You're also in a fairy tale world if you think that 'axis of evil' countries are not going to get their hands on whatever opensource software they like. Most of this stuff is mirrored all over the place and so there is little one can do to stop this (assuming it is worth stopping them in the first place).
But that is irrelevant. Why shouldn't North Korea's residents be allowed to work on Free Software?
Syria, Iran and Cuba are different matters entirely, but people in North Korea are limited by having no Internet connectivity in the first place, than by being blocked by sites in the US. You may as well ask why the civilizations of Andromeda are stopping us from selling our wares there.
That said, since the only people in North Korea who are likely to access the Internet are the people in charge (who we "don't like"), it doesn't seem unreasonable to block their access to software they might use even if it's easy to circumvent anyway.
Makes me want to organize a protest where everyone posts an implementation of ROT13 on GitHub and sends email to the govt. Of course, it would probably fall on deaf ears...