4 ms·

It's also a huge waste of time for companies in the US, and to companies all over the world that use US-based services like GitHub. > GitHub.com may not be use

It's also a huge waste of time for companies in the US, and to companies all over the world that use US-based services like GitHub. > GitHub.com may not be used for purposes prohibited under applicable export control laws, including purposes related to the development, production, or use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons or long range missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles. Not only is this sentence an affront to the English language, but I hope you aren't trying to develop any drone software on GitHub...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bifrost 7y ago
If you're trying to develop any technology which requires trade secrets or IP protection -> you should not be using a public SaaS.
- jstanley 7y ago
  But there's no reason quadcopter software should require trade secrets or IP protection. It could just as easily be open source, and yet it still sounds like the rules prohibit it.
  - bifrost 7y ago
    There is plenty of open source software thats regulated. If you wanted to reach, you could say that anything that helps guide a vehicle to its destination is control technology, then apply that to something that flies and you're immediately under Aerospace.
  - gumby 7y ago
    From skirmishes in the 1990s crypto wars I can assure you plenty of open source software was export controlled. In fact this was a drive for some of Cygnus' overseas offices: not to evade the law but to do development that could not be spoiled by accidentally exposing it to a person subject to export control laws. Stupidly, we could import that software into the States, but people there couldn't fix bugs in it, only file reports.
leggomylibro 7y ago
You mean like this? https://github.com/intel-aero https://github.com/intel-aero
- bsmith0 7y ago
  Or https://github.com/betaflight/betaflight https://github.com/betaflight/betaflight
rednixion 7y ago
That's a pretty common sentence actually and is hidden away in the agreement text or the back of the manual on most things (drone bit looks new though).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bifrost 7y ago

If you're trying to develop any technology which requires trade secrets or IP protection -> you should not be using a public SaaS.

jstanley 7y ago
But there's no reason quadcopter software should require trade secrets or IP protection. It could just as easily be open source, and yet it still sounds like the rules prohibit it.
- bifrost 7y ago
  There is plenty of open source software thats regulated. If you wanted to reach, you could say that anything that helps guide a vehicle to its destination is control technology, then apply that to something that flies and you're immediately under Aerospace.
- gumby 7y ago
  From skirmishes in the 1990s crypto wars I can assure you plenty of open source software was export controlled. In fact this was a drive for some of Cygnus' overseas offices: not to evade the law but to do development that could not be spoiled by accidentally exposing it to a person subject to export control laws. Stupidly, we could import that software into the States, but people there couldn't fix bugs in it, only file reports.

leggomylibro 7y ago

You mean like this? https://github.com/intel-aero https://github.com/intel-aero

bsmith0 7y ago
Or https://github.com/betaflight/betaflight https://github.com/betaflight/betaflight

rednixion 7y ago

That's a pretty common sentence actually and is hidden away in the agreement text or the back of the manual on most things (drone bit looks new though).