On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 16:23, Damien Katz<[email protected]> wrote: > Based on similar HTTP client libraries, it looks like we do need the export > restrictions, which really bums me out. > > I'll take care of this next week.
It's not that bad I think. (Thankfully, I'm not living under U.S. legislation, plus I am not a lawyer, but) as I understand it, anyone exporting software from the U.S. is subject to these regulations related to cryptography etc. What the ASF provides is just a /classification/ to help our users see where these regulations might apply. They have to check for themselves anyway when they export. So the notification which is filed with US administration does not restrict distribution of CouchDB any more than it is restricted anyway without the notification. The process is as lean as can be: just one patch to an xml file + one email. People at infra or legal should be able to help you out, our just feel free to contact me if you need help with this. Relax, Bernd > > -Damien > > On Aug 20, 2009, at 12:42 AM, Curt Arnold wrote: > >> ibrowse_http_client would also look like a potential area of concern, it >> contains calls to ssl:connect and has other code specific to ssl >> connections. Likely would not be an issue for CouchDB if we weren't >> redistributing it. > >
