4 ms·

It's an unfortunate situation but the solution has to come at the diplomatic level. The Fedora project is wise to steer clear of legal minefields. Complaints ad

It's an unfortunate situation but the solution has to come at the diplomatic level. The Fedora project is wise to steer clear of legal minefields. Complaints addressed to the usual place. https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-technology-iran-a1690f768777b25bc8a8fe6d94bf8669 https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-technology-iran-a1690...

mjw1007 5y ago
Another approach is to avoid basing important Free Software projects in the USA.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  Or possibly any FVEY nation? But I have the "naive hacker" view that software should be able to transcend this sort of thing, in a cyberspace orthogonal to the space of nation-states. Ahmad's experience shows we are clearly not there.
- anonymousab 5y ago
  More or less, yes. The unfortunate nature of having a project operate on a global scale of that the project is then subject to politics and problems at a global level, and to some extent needs to be aware of the relationships and conflicts between global-level entities like nation states. They are part and parcel. Such a project can only make it best effort and choose to rely on domains where it thinks it will have the least problems. Sometimes that isn't the US, and sometimes it is.
  - the_af 5y ago
    If it was truly global, I could accept it grudgingly. But this is a single actor: the US. The US gets to decide who has access in other countries to stuff built by people all over the world. It's not the US saying "this cannot be accessed by US citizens", effectively only affecting its own citizens (who can then exert some pressure on their own government if they disagree with the restriction); it's the US deciding what other countries can access. And the stuff they are deciding on is collaborative, not 100% built by US citizens. It's not global. It's unilateral.
    - hello_marmalade 5y ago
      The company is based in the US. It's therefore subject to US law. There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
      - the_af 5y ago
        Your answer reinforces what I'm saying: the US is unilaterally enforcing, through sanctions or legal pressure on a US company, restrictions on a shared "free" project. Hence, "free" isn't free. > There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US. How can this be done legally, when access to the git repo was removed because he was an Iranian? More importantly: FOSS projects thrive with global collaboration. If access is unilaterally restricted, while it's true the author could just take his local copy of the repo and host it someplace else, he will lose access to many of his collaborators. I'm going to go out on a limb and risk that Americans contributing to software projects hosted in Iran or in countries friendly with Iran are also going to be at risk. This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric.
        anonymousab 5y ago
        > This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric That's fair. Interpreting or framing this as [the US valuing a specific kind of influence on Iran over them valuing the benefits of collaboration] makes sense.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Or any other country, really.
- alex_smart 5y ago
  What's the Switzerland of software?
- shadilay 5y ago
  If a foreign company breaks sanctions they are banned from doing business in the US, and any company they do business with is banned to. Without being an international pariah there is no way the get around US sanctions. Unless you want to base your free software project in North Korea (do they even have LLC's?) not being in the US won't help you here.

mjw1007 5y ago

Another approach is to avoid basing important Free Software projects in the USA.

CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
Or possibly any FVEY nation? But I have the "naive hacker" view that software should be able to transcend this sort of thing, in a cyberspace orthogonal to the space of nation-states. Ahmad's experience shows we are clearly not there.
anonymousab 5y ago
More or less, yes. The unfortunate nature of having a project operate on a global scale of that the project is then subject to politics and problems at a global level, and to some extent needs to be aware of the relationships and conflicts between global-level entities like nation states. They are part and parcel. Such a project can only make it best effort and choose to rely on domains where it thinks it will have the least problems. Sometimes that isn't the US, and sometimes it is.
- the_af 5y ago
  If it was truly global, I could accept it grudgingly. But this is a single actor: the US. The US gets to decide who has access in other countries to stuff built by people all over the world. It's not the US saying "this cannot be accessed by US citizens", effectively only affecting its own citizens (who can then exert some pressure on their own government if they disagree with the restriction); it's the US deciding what other countries can access. And the stuff they are deciding on is collaborative, not 100% built by US citizens. It's not global. It's unilateral.
  - hello_marmalade 5y ago
    The company is based in the US. It's therefore subject to US law. There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US.
    - the_af 5y ago
      Your answer reinforces what I'm saying: the US is unilaterally enforcing, through sanctions or legal pressure on a US company, restrictions on a shared "free" project. Hence, "free" isn't free. > There's nothing stopping anyone from forking / rehosting these things outside of the US. How can this be done legally, when access to the git repo was removed because he was an Iranian? More importantly: FOSS projects thrive with global collaboration. If access is unilaterally restricted, while it's true the author could just take his local copy of the repo and host it someplace else, he will lose access to many of his collaborators. I'm going to go out on a limb and risk that Americans contributing to software projects hosted in Iran or in countries friendly with Iran are also going to be at risk. This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric.
      - anonymousab 5y ago
        > This isn't being global, which was my point: this is being US-centric That's fair. Interpreting or framing this as [the US valuing a specific kind of influence on Iran over them valuing the benefits of collaboration] makes sense.
mcguire 5y ago
Or any other country, really.
alex_smart 5y ago
What's the Switzerland of software?
shadilay 5y ago
If a foreign company breaks sanctions they are banned from doing business in the US, and any company they do business with is banned to. Without being an international pariah there is no way the get around US sanctions. Unless you want to base your free software project in North Korea (do they even have LLC's?) not being in the US won't help you here.