3 ms·

I'm curious how export restrictions would affect open source projects like Tensorflow and PyTorch. Would they be forced to become closed source? Could the licen

I'm curious how export restrictions would affect open source projects like Tensorflow and PyTorch. Would they be forced to become closed source? Could the license just include a disclaimer: "You're not allowed to use this if you're in one of the following countries: ..."? Would sites like Gitlab and Github be forced to implement per-repo geoblocking? Could they somehow be moved to ownership by a non-American entity that wasn't subject to such code? Does a US citizen contributing to a non-US open source ML project constitute a breach of export controls?

gumby 8y ago
In the 90s it meant open source software (we didn’t use this term back then) like Kerberos were considered munitions and it was illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license. At Cygnus we generated a version with no cryptography at all and sent it to Switzerland where someone wrote crypto routines (available in the open literature) that interoperated, and the everyone on the planet had access to it (but American folks had a different version). All so that the Swiss stock exchange could use Kerberos for single sign on and end-to-end encryption.
- logicchains 8y ago
  Was publishing cryptography papers in open-access journals also illegal? Without such a ban it seems it would be very hard to stop the export of AI, as it's not particularly difficult to implement an AI algorithm from spec, just tedious; certainly much easier than implementing one's own crypto. >illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license I wonder if in this case Git{hub|lab} would need the license, or the person uploading the code?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ninguem2 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
  - magoghm 8y ago
    You couldn't export software implementing cryptography, but there wasn't any similar restriction on books about cryptography, even if the book contained detailed descriptions of the algorithms and the mathematics!
    - justincormack 8y ago
      The PGP source code was published as a book to avoid this https://philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/BookPreface.html https://philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/BookPreface.html
      - tapland 8y ago
        The Darknet Diaries podcast has an episode on this called 'The Crypto Wars': https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/12 https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/12
      - tclancy 8y ago
        Wasn’t it also published as a T-shirt?
        wbl 8y ago
        You are thinking of the RSA perl t-shirt.
- ngcc_hk 8y ago
  That mean we have two free products. Compete each other. Open source is not one software to rule them all. If you think it is restrictive to Russia, china or Swiss, open your own sources!!! Do not just suck. Give up your milk and let the world be free not just free according to contribution by American. We need more maker not free rider.
  - dboreham 8y ago
    Actually it meant one version: the one produced outside the USA (since there was no restriction on using that inside the USA). So the law achieved roughly nothing besides exporting coding jobs.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DennisP 8y ago
PGP printed their code in a book and exported that. The clarified matters and the courts ruled that source code was protected by the First Amendment. This is still true unless the courts overturn precedent.

gumby 8y ago

In the 90s it meant open source software (we didn’t use this term back then) like Kerberos were considered munitions and it was illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license. At Cygnus we generated a version with no cryptography at all and sent it to Switzerland where someone wrote crypto routines (available in the open literature) that interoperated, and the everyone on the planet had access to it (but American folks had a different version). All so that the Swiss stock exchange could use Kerberos for single sign on and end-to-end encryption.

logicchains 8y ago
Was publishing cryptography papers in open-access journals also illegal? Without such a ban it seems it would be very hard to stop the export of AI, as it's not particularly difficult to implement an AI algorithm from spec, just tedious; certainly much easier than implementing one's own crypto. >illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license I wonder if in this case Git{hub|lab} would need the license, or the person uploading the code?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ninguem2 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
- magoghm 8y ago
  You couldn't export software implementing cryptography, but there wasn't any similar restriction on books about cryptography, even if the book contained detailed descriptions of the algorithms and the mathematics!
  - justincormack 8y ago
    The PGP source code was published as a book to avoid this https://philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/BookPreface.html https://philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/BookPreface.html
    - tapland 8y ago
      The Darknet Diaries podcast has an episode on this called 'The Crypto Wars': https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/12 https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/12
    - tclancy 8y ago
      Wasn’t it also published as a T-shirt?
      - wbl 8y ago
        You are thinking of the RSA perl t-shirt.
ngcc_hk 8y ago
That mean we have two free products. Compete each other. Open source is not one software to rule them all. If you think it is restrictive to Russia, china or Swiss, open your own sources!!! Do not just suck. Give up your milk and let the world be free not just free according to contribution by American. We need more maker not free rider.
- dboreham 8y ago
  Actually it meant one version: the one produced outside the USA (since there was no restriction on using that inside the USA). So the law achieved roughly nothing besides exporting coding jobs.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

DennisP 8y ago

PGP printed their code in a book and exported that. The clarified matters and the courts ruled that source code was protected by the First Amendment. This is still true unless the courts overturn precedent.