Live data from Hacker News

SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

arabcrunch.com

1–10 of 32 posts

Re: SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

#2
Proxies can be used to get the software from SF in these countries.

The issue is about principles: freedom to innovate, free access, and to follow open source principles that SF preaches:

The Open Source Definition Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code.

The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: … 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.

For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

The blockhead action is a direct Discrimination Against around 200 million innocent people in Syria, Sudan, Iran, N Korea and Cuba.

Re: SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

#4
Isn't it ironic? They block the page to a specific group of people based on "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups".

They also potentially cut off the access for people who have their main project site at sf.net - which leaves everyone using the software without updates from a trusted/original source in case of security issues.

Re: SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

#5
It’s hard to say SourceForge is in the wrong, given they’re subject to US law. On the other hand, I can’t say they’re in the right, because it does clearly violate the principles of open source/free software. Such situations are unfortunate, but the best solution seems to be ‘hope the law doesn’t come for you’. Not a long-term option.

Re: SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

#6
post #5

It’s hard to say SourceForge is in the wrong, given they’re subject to US law. On the other hand, I can’t say they’re in the right, because it does clearly violate the principles of open source/free software. Such situations are unfortunate, but the best solution seems to be ‘hope the law doesn’t come for you’. Not a long-term option.

Is is hardly surprising though as these countries fall under OFAC Sanctions. Google employ the same policies on Project hosting btw, ref: http://code.google.com/projecthosting/terms.html - part 5.

See: http://ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/

Re: SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

#7
post #5

It’s hard to say SourceForge is in the wrong, given they’re subject to US law. On the other hand, I can’t say they’re in the right, because it does clearly violate the principles of open source/free software. Such situations are unfortunate, but the best solution seems to be ‘hope the law doesn’t come for you’. Not a long-term option.

You could argue then that they are in breach of the GPL on stuff they do use themselves.

You can hardly take GPL source, modify it and refuse to distribute it to certain groups - wether this is your choice or a rule imposed by your country

Re: SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

#8
post #4

Isn't it ironic? They block the page to a specific group of people based on "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". They also potentially cut off the access for people who have their main project site at sf.net - which leaves everyone using the software without updates from a trusted/original source in case of security issues.

Not really because a software license agreement can't supersede the laws of the country in which it is executed. Also the license only stipulates that you make the source available to people you distribute the compiled binary to so if they block the whole site it's hard to argue they are breaking the letter of the agreement.

Re: SourceForge Blocks Syria, Sudan, Iran, N. Korea & Cuba

#10
post #5

It’s hard to say SourceForge is in the wrong, given they’re subject to US law. On the other hand, I can’t say they’re in the right, because it does clearly violate the principles of open source/free software. Such situations are unfortunate, but the best solution seems to be ‘hope the law doesn’t come for you’. Not a long-term option.

You could argue then that they are in breach of the GPL on stuff they do use themselves. You can hardly take GPL source, modify it and refuse to distribute it to certain groups - wether this is your choice or a rule imposed by your country

But you can. What the GPL says is that if you distribute/sell the object code, you must distribute the source code as well. So you have no obligation to distribute anything to anyone, but if you do distribute the code, you are obliged to distribute the source.

Quoting from Stallman's The Free Software Definition:

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

Post reply on HN