4 ms·

Are you sure about that? Publicly-available open source software can be exempt from ITAR according to this page: https://www.unr.edu/sponsored-projects/complian

by Sephr 7y ago

Are you sure about that? Publicly-available open source software can be exempt from ITAR according to this page: https://www.unr.edu/sponsored-projects/compliance/export-controls/publicly-available https://www.unr.edu/sponsored-projects/compliance/export-con...

tedmiston 7y ago
If it's publicly available open source, it can't contain ITAR. If there is existing open source that doesn't contain ITAR, then that's fine because it's beyond the scope of ITAR, so ITAR doesn't apply to that scenario. [Maybe this is the case you're mentioning?] If it is ITAR, it can't possibly be publicly available open source. [How could it be possible to have publicly-available open source software that is also restricted to being only shared with U.S. citizens?] Of course an ITAR project could pull in publicly available open source (e.g., dependencies), but that doesn't sounds like what's being discussed here.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  This is just word games. We can sensibly speak of tech that "would be" an ITAR violation to deliver "if it were not" open source. This is exactly the scenario under discussion. It seems very clear from the linked page that, e.g., GPS code that is released as free/open is, in fact, not restricted by ITAR.
- TechnicalVault 7y ago
  There is a certain unrealistic arrogance to the US approach to ITAR and software that seems to assume only US Persons could create technology on the list. GPS receiver systems are the classic there: Russia, China and Europe all have their own GNSS. China runs the semiconductor industry and is quite capable of producing whatever unrestricted GNSS devices they choose. Therefore why restrict US companies? Same with satellite tech, there may be some US specific tricks but there is a reason ITAR free satellite designs already exist and are multiplying. ITAR tries to protect too much and is killing US market share by being stupidly annoying.

by Sephr 7y ago

tedmiston 7y ago

If it's publicly available open source, it can't contain ITAR. If there is existing open source that doesn't contain ITAR, then that's fine because it's beyond the scope of ITAR, so ITAR doesn't apply to that scenario. [Maybe this is the case you're mentioning?] If it is ITAR, it can't possibly be publicly available open source. [How could it be possible to have publicly-available open source software that is also restricted to being only shared with U.S. citizens?] Of course an ITAR project could pull in publicly available open source (e.g., dependencies), but that doesn't sounds like what's being discussed here.

ncmncm 7y ago
This is just word games. We can sensibly speak of tech that "would be" an ITAR violation to deliver "if it were not" open source. This is exactly the scenario under discussion. It seems very clear from the linked page that, e.g., GPS code that is released as free/open is, in fact, not restricted by ITAR.
TechnicalVault 7y ago
There is a certain unrealistic arrogance to the US approach to ITAR and software that seems to assume only US Persons could create technology on the list. GPS receiver systems are the classic there: Russia, China and Europe all have their own GNSS. China runs the semiconductor industry and is quite capable of producing whatever unrestricted GNSS devices they choose. Therefore why restrict US companies? Same with satellite tech, there may be some US specific tricks but there is a reason ITAR free satellite designs already exist and are multiplying. ITAR tries to protect too much and is killing US market share by being stupidly annoying.