3 ms·

Surely you can see the difference between blocking someone from publishing Chomsky and forbidding US companies from "doing business" in those places. Meanwhile

Surely you can see the difference between blocking someone from publishing Chomsky and forbidding US companies from "doing business" in those places. Meanwhile for decades I remember many software EULAs saying things vaguely equivalent to "don't use this software in Cuba", etc. That is what I would compare this to.

wongarsu 7y ago
Github is essentially a public library for computer code, but they happen to make money. I'm not sure I can see the difference between publishing and "doing business" in this case.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I don't know either, and I am no expert, but it sounds like Github/Microsoft lawyers may have decided it on one side or the other. I put it in quotation marks because it is my laymen's understanding of what the sanctions are intended to cover. I could be wrong and the actual boundaries could be subject to debate and disagreement.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    > I don't know either, and I am no expert, but it sounds like Github/Microsoft lawyers may have decided it on one side or the other. I think they've realized that the argument that they are a commercial publisher is quite strong. Thus they are not eager to challenge it and wind up heavily fined for sactions-busting. Especially since Microsoft is a significant supplier to US government entities.
- wolco 7y ago
  They are a private company. They offer free services that make it feel that way but they are not. We should be putting our collection of code in something else with a mission around those ideals.
- edejong 7y ago
  I find it intriguing how people keep making these mistakes. Something is not 'public' because it is shared by many people and used as if it is public. It is a wolf in sheep's clothes and it isn't even lying about it. Github, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Sourceforge, HN, Slashdot... These free services are not public. You might treat them as such, but you are foolish believing they are. If you cannot see the difference, I suggest to read the excellent Wikipedia article. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

wongarsu 7y ago

Github is essentially a public library for computer code, but they happen to make money. I'm not sure I can see the difference between publishing and "doing business" in this case.

asveikau 7y ago
I don't know either, and I am no expert, but it sounds like Github/Microsoft lawyers may have decided it on one side or the other. I put it in quotation marks because it is my laymen's understanding of what the sanctions are intended to cover. I could be wrong and the actual boundaries could be subject to debate and disagreement.
- Kalium 7y ago
  > I don't know either, and I am no expert, but it sounds like Github/Microsoft lawyers may have decided it on one side or the other. I think they've realized that the argument that they are a commercial publisher is quite strong. Thus they are not eager to challenge it and wind up heavily fined for sactions-busting. Especially since Microsoft is a significant supplier to US government entities.
wolco 7y ago
They are a private company. They offer free services that make it feel that way but they are not. We should be putting our collection of code in something else with a mission around those ideals.
edejong 7y ago
I find it intriguing how people keep making these mistakes. Something is not 'public' because it is shared by many people and used as if it is public. It is a wolf in sheep's clothes and it isn't even lying about it. Github, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Sourceforge, HN, Slashdot... These free services are not public. You might treat them as such, but you are foolish believing they are. If you cannot see the difference, I suggest to read the excellent Wikipedia article. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service