4 ms·

The article takes a while to get to the point made in the title but the way to counteract this seems to be, get the infrastructure for open source out of Americ

The article takes a while to get to the point made in the title but the way to counteract this seems to be, get the infrastructure for open source out of America before it's too late. In contrast to the ARM example, the US doesn't really have any leverage against a volunteer open source project not within its borders.

thefounder 7y ago
This means get the open source off github as well...
- ralph84 7y ago
  Or keep it there where you have one of the most powerful companies in the world to defend it.
  - thefounder 7y ago
    There is nothing to defend. US gov(i.e Trump) gives a directive and the "one of the most powerful company in the world" complies like all the others did(i.e Huawei's suppliers, Oil companies dealing with Iran etc).
maxander 7y ago
Sure it does, if a large chunk of the volunteers are in the US. The division of the open source world into the “US part” and the “Chinese part” would be a roughly 50% cut in the efficiency of the FOSS ecosystem, and is on the table given the developments he describes.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Metcalfe's Law probably applies, though perhaps not at full effect. That would suggest the diminution in effectiveness of the FOSS ecosystem would be more severe than linear.
ISL 7y ago
Fortunately, there is a bulwark: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The bulwark defending the bulwark is the population.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Good luck explaining your commits to that munitions grade crypto used by terror cells in the mideast region as "Free Speech". Hope that works out for you. :-( (I'd wager there'll be a few more Snowden types asking for asylum outside the US before this is all over.)
  - downrightmike 7y ago
    Already holds up: "The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case). " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
    - pessimizer 7y ago
      How it worked out last time is no guarantee of how it will work out this time.
      - ralph84 7y ago
        I like the odds in the US better than anywhere else. No other country has a better track record of protecting freedom of speech.
    - 7y ago
blihp 7y ago
Open Source effectively is out of America or any other single jurisdiction: think of all of the people who have up to date copies of virtually every package all around the world. If the U.S. were to say tomorrow, as we used to do with cryptography, that (certain types of) software can't be shared outside of the U.S., the development of said (Open Source) software would likely just be taken over by groups outside the U.S.[1] I recall that happening in the 90's with a few different types of software due to U.S. software patents and corporate legal departments. VLC hasn't always been the go-to Linux multimedia application, for example. [1] The infrastructure part is easy, the giving away access/bandwidth for free part is hard.
- butteroverflow 7y ago
  I believe the majority of FOSS developers reside in the US. You can't really pipe them out through a fiber channel.
  - toyg 7y ago
    You might get an immediate hit to development, but given a bit of time non-US developers would step up their game. A lot of FOSS is paid for by big companies who would likely want to continue operating this way, so they would reroute expenses accordingly. Crypto didn't die when it was export-restricted, and that stuff is really complicated.
  - blihp 7y ago
    In general, the developers are wherever the corporate sponsorship is these days. i.e most development on key packages these days isn't done as a labor of love by most developers anymore. Also, at least a significant fraction, if not the majority, of those doing FOSS development here in the U.S. weren't born here. Linus being a perfect example. So it's not like we have any magic pixie dust that makes U.S.-born developers special. So you're right, you can't pipe them out through fiber channel but you don't need to. You just need to fund them wherever you want them.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago

thefounder 7y ago

This means get the open source off github as well...

ralph84 7y ago
Or keep it there where you have one of the most powerful companies in the world to defend it.
- thefounder 7y ago
  There is nothing to defend. US gov(i.e Trump) gives a directive and the "one of the most powerful company in the world" complies like all the others did(i.e Huawei's suppliers, Oil companies dealing with Iran etc).

maxander 7y ago

Sure it does, if a large chunk of the volunteers are in the US. The division of the open source world into the “US part” and the “Chinese part” would be a roughly 50% cut in the efficiency of the FOSS ecosystem, and is on the table given the developments he describes.

sokoloff 7y ago
Metcalfe's Law probably applies, though perhaps not at full effect. That would suggest the diminution in effectiveness of the FOSS ecosystem would be more severe than linear.

ISL 7y ago

Fortunately, there is a bulwark: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The bulwark defending the bulwark is the population.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Good luck explaining your commits to that munitions grade crypto used by terror cells in the mideast region as "Free Speech". Hope that works out for you. :-( (I'd wager there'll be a few more Snowden types asking for asylum outside the US before this is all over.)
- downrightmike 7y ago
  Already holds up: "The claimed principle was simple: export of munitions—guns, bombs, planes, and software—was (and remains) restricted; but the export of books is protected by the First Amendment. The question was never tested in court with respect to PGP. In cases addressing other encryption software, however, two federal appeals courts have established the rule that cryptographic software source code is speech protected by the First Amendment (the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Junger case). " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    How it worked out last time is no guarantee of how it will work out this time.
    - ralph84 7y ago
      I like the odds in the US better than anywhere else. No other country has a better track record of protecting freedom of speech.
  - 7y ago

blihp 7y ago

Open Source effectively is out of America or any other single jurisdiction: think of all of the people who have up to date copies of virtually every package all around the world. If the U.S. were to say tomorrow, as we used to do with cryptography, that (certain types of) software can't be shared outside of the U.S., the development of said (Open Source) software would likely just be taken over by groups outside the U.S.[1] I recall that happening in the 90's with a few different types of software due to U.S. software patents and corporate legal departments. VLC hasn't always been the go-to Linux multimedia application, for example. [1] The infrastructure part is easy, the giving away access/bandwidth for free part is hard.

butteroverflow 7y ago
I believe the majority of FOSS developers reside in the US. You can't really pipe them out through a fiber channel.
- toyg 7y ago
  You might get an immediate hit to development, but given a bit of time non-US developers would step up their game. A lot of FOSS is paid for by big companies who would likely want to continue operating this way, so they would reroute expenses accordingly. Crypto didn't die when it was export-restricted, and that stuff is really complicated.
- blihp 7y ago
  In general, the developers are wherever the corporate sponsorship is these days. i.e most development on key packages these days isn't done as a labor of love by most developers anymore. Also, at least a significant fraction, if not the majority, of those doing FOSS development here in the U.S. weren't born here. Linus being a perfect example. So it's not like we have any magic pixie dust that makes U.S.-born developers special. So you're right, you can't pipe them out through fiber channel but you don't need to. You just need to fund them wherever you want them.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago