...making Linux just a little more fun!
Simon Lascelles [simon.lascelles at rems.com]
We are looking for a version of Linux we can use legally in Syria. Do you know of a list of all Linux variants and their country of origin or do you know of a variant that is export compliant?
-- Simon Lascelles Managing Director REMS International Email: <blocked::mailto:simon.lascelles@rems.com> simon.lascelles@rems.com Web Site: <http://www.rems.com/> http://www.rems.com/ Mobile: 07956 676112 Telephone: 01727 848800Yahoo: rems25x8@yahoo.com
Mobile communications are changing the face of business, and organisations that deploy mobile solutions will reap the greatest competitive advantage
_________________________________________________
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:38:51PM +0100, Simon Lascelles wrote:
> > We are looking for a version of Linux we can use legally in Syria. > > Do you know of a list of all Linux variants and their country of origin or > do you know of a variant that is export compliant?
I may be wrong, but I believe that you're looking for something that doesn't exist. Under the The Wassenaar Arrangement, the US OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) has issued an explicit ruling prohibiting the exportation of Linux to the countries on the SDN list - of which Syria is one.
Don Marti has published an open letter to the US Department of Commerce in the Linux Journal on the topic (with regard to Iraq, but equally applicable to your question):
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7318 Under the provisions of License Exception TSU, open source and the corresponding object code may be exported to all destinations except Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Thus, open source and the corresponding object code are treated as if subject only to AT (anti-terrorism) controls. Items subject to AT controls may be exported to Iraq under the interim final rule (68 Fed. Reg. 38188) amending the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations. It is incongruous that publicly available software such as Linux has more restrictions than proprietary operating system software. Thus, we respectfully suggest that BIS amend Section 746.3 to permit exports to Iraq of open source and the corresponding object code.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Paul Sephton [paul at inet.co.za]
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:23 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:38:51PM +0100, Simon Lascelles wrote: > > > > We are looking for a version of Linux we can use legally in Syria. > > > > Do you know of a list of all Linux variants and their country of origin or > > do you know of a variant that is export compliant? > > I may be wrong, but I believe that you're looking for something that > doesn't exist. Under the The Wassenaar Arrangement, the US OFAC (Office > of Foreign Assets Control) has issued an explicit ruling prohibiting the > exportation of Linux to the countries on the SDN list - of which Syria > is one. > > Don Marti has published an open letter to the US Department of Commerce > in the Linux Journal on the topic (with regard to Iraq, but equally > applicable to your question):
Is this not making the sweeping assumption that all open source is produced in the USA? Or that all contributors to the Linux operating system code are American?
If exportation of the Linux operating system is prohibited to said countries, then are imports of the Linux operating system as produced by citizens of those countries not also prohibited from said countries?
If some clever fellow from Syria or Iraq at some time in the past contributed to an open source product before such restrictions, then is his copyright not violated by a subsequent imposition of a prohibition? What about the long term future of open source- is it to be subject to the vaguaries of world politics?
I love America and it's freedoms dearly (despite being South African) but such arrogance as to assume that any technology of worth is produced wholly by America and should thus be treated as "exports" really gets my goat.
If I were Simon, I would forward a friendly note to Mark Shuttleworth (of Ubuntu fame) to ask whether he believes his distro is restricted for use in Syria.
Regards,
Paul Sephton
René Pfeiffer [lynx at luchs.at]
On Jun 26, 2008 at 2350 +0200, Paul Sephton appeared and said:
> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:23 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > [...] > > Don Marti has published an open letter to the US Department of Commerce > > in the Linux Journal on the topic (with regard to Iraq, but equally > > applicable to your question): >=20 > Is this not making the sweeping assumption that all open source is > produced in the USA? Or that all contributors to the Linux operating > system code are American?
I don't think this message was Ben's intention. The regulations apply if you want to ship distributions to certain countries. The software may also go there by Internet.
> If exportation of the Linux operating system is prohibited to said > countries, then are imports of the Linux operating system as produced > by citizens of those countries not also prohibited from said > countries? =20 >=20 > If some clever fellow from Syria or Iraq at some time in the past > contributed to an open source product before such restrictions, then is > his copyright not violated by a subsequent imposition of a prohibition?
This is an interesting twist. On the other hand these countries may have their own regulations as well. I remember a friend of mine giving a talk in Syria about how to foster the development of Free Software. While being there she noticed that all Internet access is monitored and reduced to proxy connections on port 80 and 25. Getting a CVS/svn/git checkin or checkout can be tricky if your nice government proxy doesn't allow that.
> [...] > I love America and it's freedoms dearly (despite being South African) > but such arrogance as to assume that any technology of worth is produced > wholly by America and should thus be treated as "exports" really gets my > goat.
Establishing supremacy has its advantages, it enables you to do your job, for example do proper spying:
"... That's right, my continental friends, we have spied on you because you bribe. Your companies' products are often more costly, less technically advanced or both, than your American competitors'. As a result you bribe a lot. So complicit are your governments that in several European countries bribes still are tax-deductible. ..." http://cryptome.org/echelon-cia2.htm
But this is another debate and more of analog nature (Echelon doesn't do digital signals).
> If I were Simon, I would forward a friendly note to Mark Shuttleworth > (of Ubuntu fame) to ask whether he believes his distro is restricted for > use in Syria.
I wonder if there are any Arabic Linux distributions around as well. If there are Chinese distributions, there should be others too.
Best, René.
René Pfeiffer [lynx at luchs.at]
On Jun 26, 2008 at 2350 +0200, Paul Sephton appeared and said:
> [...] > If some clever fellow from Syria or Iraq at some time in the past > contributed to an open source product before such restrictions, then is > his copyright not violated by a subsequent imposition of a prohibition?
They have user groups, and I am curious how they work and if they produce patches and code (they probably do).
http://www.tectonic.co.za/wordpress/?p=3D803
Best, René.
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:50:02PM +0200, Paul Sephton wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:23 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:38:51PM +0100, Simon Lascelles wrote: > > > > > > We are looking for a version of Linux we can use legally in Syria. > > > > > > Do you know of a list of all Linux variants and their country of origin or > > > do you know of a variant that is export compliant? > > > > I may be wrong, but I believe that you're looking for something that > > doesn't exist. Under the The Wassenaar Arrangement, the US OFAC (Office > > of Foreign Assets Control) has issued an explicit ruling prohibiting the > > exportation of Linux to the countries on the SDN list - of which Syria > > is one. > > > > Don Marti has published an open letter to the US Department of Commerce > > in the Linux Journal on the topic (with regard to Iraq, but equally > > applicable to your question): > > Is this not making the sweeping assumption that all open source is > produced in the USA?
I just knew that somebody was going to say that. 
Paul, let me recap what we know:
a) Simon has asked about using Linux legally in Syria. This means that he's concerned with international law in that regard - which lies squarely across the Wassenaar Agreement (hence, my mention of it.)
b) The question is not whether "all open source" is being produced in the US, but whether any of it is. I.e., if you violate "only" 1% of everything connected with the export of a given item, you're still a criminal.
c) As it happens, a very large part of Linux - many libraries, etc. - is indeed produced in the US, so it's not even a question of some vanishing fraction; it's an issue that is definitely applicable.
d) The domain that Simon is coming from - and I am making an assumption here, but not the one you were thinking of - is that of a UK company. The UK is a signatory to the Wassenaar, AFAIK.
Does this make my statement a bit more understandable?
> Or that all contributors to the Linux operating > system code are American?
Another non-issue, and for the same reason.
> If exportation of the Linux operating system is prohibited to said > countries, then are imports of the Linux operating system as produced > by citizens of those countries not also prohibited from said > countries?
I couldn't say, but that's not the question that was being asked - and I can't actually make out how that would be relevant.
> If some clever fellow from Syria or Iraq at some time in the past > contributed to an open source product before such restrictions, then is > his copyright not violated by a subsequent imposition of a prohibition?
I wouldn't think so. He still owns the copyright to what he's produced. Copyright, however, has nothing to do with the right to export or import anything - please correct me if I'm wrong.
> What about the long term future of open source- is it to be subject to > the vaguaries of world politics?
Um... yes? As is anything in the human realm, I'm afraid. The meaning of the word 'politics' makes that clear, I would think.
> I love America and it's freedoms dearly (despite being South African) > but such arrogance as to assume that any technology of worth is produced > wholly by America and should thus be treated as "exports" really gets my > goat.
I assure you that I didn't get any of it. I'd know, since I'm a big fan
of goat. No, it was crab last night (Rustic Crab Shack in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida - extreme yum!)
Anyway, there was no arrogance intended - or, as I think I've shown, inherent - in what I've said.
> If I were Simon, I would forward a friendly note to Mark Shuttleworth > (of Ubuntu fame) to ask whether he believes his distro is restricted for > use in Syria.
As much as I respect his work, I assure you that what Mark Shuttleworth believes in this regard is irrelevant; it's an issue at the federal levels. If anything, the fact that he holds a dual citizenship makes him twice as vulnerable - if he violates the law of either SA or the UK, he's in trouble. That's also pretty much the crux of the problem that Simon asked about, as I see it.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Lew Pitcher [lew.pitcher at digitalfreehold.ca]
On June 26, 2008 18:27:49 Ben Okopnik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:50:02PM +0200, Paul Sephton wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:23 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:38:51PM +0100, Simon Lascelles wrote: > > > > We are looking for a version of Linux we can use legally in Syria. > > > > > > > > Do you know of a list of all Linux variants and their country of > > > > origin or do you know of a variant that is export compliant? > > > > > > I may be wrong, but I believe that you're looking for something that > > > doesn't exist. Under the The Wassenaar Arrangement, the US OFAC (Office > > > of Foreign Assets Control) has issued an explicit ruling prohibiting > > > the exportation of Linux to the countries on the SDN list - of which > > > Syria is one. > > > > > > Don Marti has published an open letter to the US Department of Commerce > > > in the Linux Journal on the topic (with regard to Iraq, but equally > > > applicable to your question): > > > > Is this not making the sweeping assumption that all open source is > > produced in the USA? > > I just knew that somebody was going to say that.[snip]
This conversation piqued my interest a bit, so I checked out the Wassenaar Agreement homepage (http://www.wassenaar.org/) and found the Control List (revised 2007).In that list (http://www.wassenaar.org/controllists/2007/WA-LIST%20(07)%202%20Corr.pdf), it states: "The Lists do not control "software" which is either: 1. Generally available to the public by being: a. Sold from stock at retail selling points without restriction, by means of: 1. Over-the-counter transactions; 2. Mail order transactions; 3. Electronic transactions; or 4. Telephone call transactions; and b. Designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier; or 2. "In the public domain". " (with the caveat that "Information Security Software" (i.e strong encryption, either symmetric key or asymmetric key) *is not* exempt from the agreement.
The GNU Organization has a Wassenaar position page (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wassenaar.html) where they indicate "we saw that it continues to have an exception that seems to cover free software. (They use the term "public domain", but they seem to mean something like free software by that.) "
Further, participation in the Wassenaar Agreement is limited to Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States
ISTM that a) The Wassenaar Agreement may not apply to a Linux distribution that does not include a strong encryption package, and b) A transfer of such software /may/ be performed from one of the countries not participating in the Wassenaar Agreement.
However, I am not a lawyer (especially, not a lawyer specializing in the importing or exporting of software products), and I *do not* recommend that the OP consider my opinion (or other opinions expressed here) as permission to commence importing software to Syria. Instead, the OP /really/ needs to check with legal council regarding the import/export of such material.
Does anyone know of a Linux distro created in or distributed from Syria? I noticed that, at counter.li.org, there are 63 registered users of Linux in Syria (http://counter.li.org/reports/place.php?place=SY). Perhaps one of these users (the report page gives some contact info) can assist the OP.
-- Lew Pitcher
Paul Sephton [paul at inet.co.za]
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 18:27 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:50:02PM +0200, Paul Sephton wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:23 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:38:51PM +0100, Simon Lascelles wrote: > > > > > > > > We are looking for a version of Linux we can use legally in Syria. > > > > > > > > Do you know of a list of all Linux variants and their country of origin or > > > > do you know of a variant that is export compliant? > > > > > > I may be wrong, but I believe that you're looking for something that > > > doesn't exist. Under the The Wassenaar Arrangement, the US OFAC (Office > > > of Foreign Assets Control) has issued an explicit ruling prohibiting the > > > exportation of Linux to the countries on the SDN list - of which Syria > > > is one. > > > > > > Don Marti has published an open letter to the US Department of Commerce > > > in the Linux Journal on the topic (with regard to Iraq, but equally > > > applicable to your question): > > > > Is this not making the sweeping assumption that all open source is > > produced in the USA? > > I just knew that somebody was going to say that.
Sure- and I don't think I misunderstood your initial post. Thanks you for the clarification though.
> > Or that all contributors to the Linux operating > > system code are American? > > Another non-issue, and for the same reason. > > > If exportation of the Linux operating system is prohibited to said > > countries, then are imports of the Linux operating system as produced > > by citizens of those countries not also prohibited from said > > countries? > > I couldn't say, but that's not the question that was being asked - and I > can't actually make out how that would be relevant.
Relevant in that there are two sides to any agreement. In simplest terms, a barter exchange you trade your pig for a tin of beads. You don't just give the pork away for nothing. Export has an opposite in an import. If the law says you are not to do business, then that law should go both ways. What I see is a ban on exports, but no equivalent ban on imports.
> > If some clever fellow from Syria or Iraq at some time in the past > > contributed to an open source product before such restrictions, then is > > his copyright not violated by a subsequent imposition of a prohibition? > > I wouldn't think so. He still owns the copyright to what he's produced. > Copyright, however, has nothing to do with the right to export or import > anything - please correct me if I'm wrong.
Nit picking perhaps, but theoretically, one should be scanning every bit of code you have for possible contributions sourced from any of those countries and stripping them out. Using someones contribution and refusing to reciprocate in allowing him to use yours is unethical in my book.
> > What about the long term future of open source- is it to be subject to > > the vaguaries of world politics? > > Um... yes? As is anything in the human realm, I'm afraid. The meaning of > the word 'politics' makes that clear, I would think.
Can't argue with reality. Tomorrow, South Africa may be on that list, or America on someone elses list.
> > I love America and it's freedoms dearly (despite being South African) > > but such arrogance as to assume that any technology of worth is produced > > wholly by America and should thus be treated as "exports" really gets my > > goat. > > I assure you that I didn't get any of it. I'd know, since I'm a big fan > of goat.
Now I'm hungry
> Anyway, there was no arrogance intended - or, as I think I've shown, > inherent - in what I've said.
Ben, I am sorry if it came across that I was accusing you of arrogance. Certainly not! What I meant to say, is that for the "Office of Asset Control" to impose restrictions on open source implies their belief that open source is their asset to control. I find that arrogant. Certainly, a great part, even possibly most of open source is of American origin. However, the law does not make the distinction between "American open source" and "Foreign open source"- which is really so mixed up in single OS, app or library code as for the difference to be indiscernable.
> > If I were Simon, I would forward a friendly note to Mark Shuttleworth > > (of Ubuntu fame) to ask whether he believes his distro is restricted for > > use in Syria. > > As much as I respect his work, I assure you that what Mark Shuttleworth > believes in this regard is irrelevant; it's an issue at the federal > levels. If anything, the fact that he holds a dual citizenship makes him > twice as vulnerable - if he violates the law of either SA or the UK, > he's in trouble. That's also pretty much the crux of the problem that > Simon asked about, as I see it.
... And I never meant to imply otherwise. I am certain that Marke Shuttleworth, and many other upstanding South Africans are respectors of the law, dual citizenship notwithstanding. Be that as it may, trade agreements between different countries do differ, and I am not expert enough to say what the current political situation might be.
Whilst I abhor terrorism in any shape or form, and it may pique me to think that our Neighboring country, Zimbabwe, might be using open source to help run their corrupt government, or be used to further insiduous plots against the west by scaly characters in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libia (have I left anyone out) etc. etc. The fact remains that not everyone in those countries are uneducated or evil, and there is very little practical value in the sort of export restrictions to which your refer. The good guys will abide by the law- but don't for a moment think that the bad guys are in any way deterred. Particularly unaffected are the governments.
You have answered Simon's question, and answered it well. Your answer did raise a whole lot of other questions in my mind though.
Paul
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 03:20:18AM +0200, Paul Sephton wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 18:27 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > I just knew that somebody was going to say that.
OK, I wasn't clear on that. Your reply seemed to miss my point.
> > > If exportation of the Linux operating system is prohibited to said > > > countries, then are imports of the Linux operating system as produced > > > by citizens of those countries not also prohibited from said > > > countries? > > > > I couldn't say, but that's not the question that was being asked - and I > > can't actually make out how that would be relevant. > > Relevant in that there are two sides to any agreement. In simplest > terms, a barter exchange you trade your pig for a tin of beads. You > don't just give the pork away for nothing. Export has an opposite in > an import. If the law says you are not to do business, then that law > should go both ways. What I see is a ban on exports, but no equivalent > ban on imports.
Ah - there's that magic word "should". Has little relation to how laws work, unfortunately, and no relation at all to international law. There are plenty of situations in the latter where you're screwed no matter what you do - because something that you're required to do by one country is completely forbidden by another. The fact that one country makes gilliwhillikins available for export imposes no duty whatsoever on any other country to make it legal to import them; this comes under the heading of being 'sovereign' (a term that Robert Heinlein defined as something found in the dictionary between 'sober' and 'sozzled', and of little meaning otherwise.)
> > > If some clever fellow from Syria or Iraq at some time in the past > > > contributed to an open source product before such restrictions, then is > > > his copyright not violated by a subsequent imposition of a prohibition? > > > > I wouldn't think so. He still owns the copyright to what he's produced. > > Copyright, however, has nothing to do with the right to export or import > > anything - please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Nit picking perhaps, but theoretically, one should be scanning every bit > of code you have for possible contributions sourced from any of those > countries and stripping them out. Using someones contribution and > refusing to reciprocate in allowing him to use yours is unethical in my > book.
Let's extend that, then. How much does that "clever fellow" owe back to the people who created Linux in the first place, to the people who wrote the man pages, to the people who created the programming language that he used, or posted programming information on the Net, etc.? Does he, then, actually "own" that code in that sense? By your definition, he doesn't - if that technical debt (to misuse a common term) applies to those who use his work, then he owes as much, if not more, of a debt to everyone upstream.
One of the majort effects and benefits of open source licensing is that the actual debt imposed downstream is clearly defined rather than being some nebulous thing that can never be paid off and would require some heroic, showy action - like ripping out all code created by someone who may or may not be on some shadowy list created by some government agency. As long as the people who benefit from that "clever fellow"'s code acknowledge his contribution (AFAIK, importation of names from Syria, etc., has not yet become subject to restrictions), that debt is paid in full - except for possibly the part that can't be enforced by any government but is given freely by ethical people. It's called 'respect', and as I've frequently mentioned here in LG, it's the major currency of the open source community. That part can't be bought, sold, stolen, forced, or regulated - but it can be earned by "clever fellows" who contribute their effort to the community.
> > Anyway, there was no arrogance intended - or, as I think I've shown, > > inherent - in what I've said. > > Ben, I am sorry if it came across that I was accusing you of > arrogance. Certainly not!
Thanks for clarifying that, Paul. I didn't think you were, but I'd rather clarify than leave it hanging.
> What I meant to say, is that for the "Office > of Asset Control" to impose restrictions on open source implies their > belief that open source is their asset to control. I find that > arrogant. Certainly, a great part, even possibly most of open source is > of American origin. However, the law does not make the distinction > between "American open source" and "Foreign open source"- which is > really so mixed up in single OS, app or library code as for the > difference to be indiscernable.
Yep. And the problem is that it's within their control - at least to the extent that they can punish any American who violates their rules. In short, they have the guns, so they get to dictate to anyone they can threaten with those guns. Perhaps I'm too cynical in my viewpoint that any government anywhere is nothing more than the biggest criminal gang in the country, and thus gets to boss other criminal gangs and to make the non-criminal citizens pay them protection money... but I've found little in all my experience of the world to contradict that. I must, in all fairness, point out that some of these gangs are less than rapacious than others - but that gains them no merit in my book; their restraint is usually that of a bully who is afraid of pushing his victim too far rather than some sense of morality or mercy.
(Damn it, how did that 'RANT' switch get into the 'On' position? I must have bumped it.)
> Whilst I abhor terrorism in any shape or form, and it may pique me to > think that our Neighboring country, Zimbabwe, might be using open source > to help run their corrupt government, or be used to further insiduous > plots against the west by scaly characters in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libia > (have I left anyone out) etc. etc. The fact remains that not everyone > in those countries are uneducated or evil, and there is very little > practical value in the sort of export restrictions to which your refer. > The good guys will abide by the law- but don't for a moment think that > the bad guys are in any way deterred. Particularly unaffected are the > governments.
I won't go into this much further except to say "I agree with you" - doing so would have me ranting again. I will, however, cite a relevant entry from my quote file:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://LinuxGazette.NET *
Paul Sephton [paul at inet.co.za]
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 23:15 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> any government anywhere is nothing more than the biggest criminal gang > in the country, and thus gets to boss other criminal gangs and to make > the non-criminal citizens pay them protection money...
That is absolutely beautiful. I think I will quote you on that. A gem.
Paul