3 ms·

I'd wager it's even less work not to block anything. Answer me this: 1) Can you point to scientific evidence, or even a carefully-reasoned argument, that bloc

I'd wager it's even less work not to block anything. Answer me this: 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.

melling 16y ago
1) No I can't. Can you prove the opposite? No. Pointless argument. Yes! So why even make it? Can you find North Korea on this map? http://paradoxoff.com/north-korea-night-map.html 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_weapons 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 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.
- mquander 16y ago
  The reason I made point 1 is because our default decision should always err on the side of freedom. Why would you bother restricting anything unless you can identify some benefit to restricting it? It's more work, and maximizing freedom often results in positive results when the freedom turns out to be useful in a way you didn't expect. 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.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - melling 16y ago
    After reading through the other posts, I don't think Notepad++ was ever restricted by export controls. Sourceforge initially didn't allow them to specify that the software was not restricted by law so they restricted everyone. So, other than software that contains encryption, what software is restricted?
    - caf 16y ago
      Any software that uses encryption. If you link to OpenSSL, or call out to /usr/bin/gpg, you're toast.
mixmax 16y ago
I'll have to agree with you here. Banning physical exports may make sense - if North Korea can't import plutionum it's not very likely they'll get it. Or at least it's posssible to police the ban. 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.

melling 16y ago

1) No I can't. Can you prove the opposite? No. Pointless argument. Yes! So why even make it? Can you find North Korea on this map? http://paradoxoff.com/north-korea-night-map.html 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_weapons 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 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.

mquander 16y ago
The reason I made point 1 is because our default decision should always err on the side of freedom. Why would you bother restricting anything unless you can identify some benefit to restricting it? It's more work, and maximizing freedom often results in positive results when the freedom turns out to be useful in a way you didn't expect. 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.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- melling 16y ago
  After reading through the other posts, I don't think Notepad++ was ever restricted by export controls. Sourceforge initially didn't allow them to specify that the software was not restricted by law so they restricted everyone. So, other than software that contains encryption, what software is restricted?
  - caf 16y ago
    Any software that uses encryption. If you link to OpenSSL, or call out to /usr/bin/gpg, you're toast.

mixmax 16y ago

I'll have to agree with you here. Banning physical exports may make sense - if North Korea can't import plutionum it's not very likely they'll get it. Or at least it's posssible to police the ban. 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.