Kim wrote:
>AFAIK, there is not such project yet.
I don't read Korean yet. :(
I have come across one or two projects that looked like:
i) They were for the Democratic People's Republic.
ii) They were freeware.
I _think_ that one of them might have been for Bible Study Software.
Charles wrote:
> it makes people nervous to deal with NK.
Mainly the US government.
> First, OOo is not bound by US law.
OOo is an informal organization in cyberspace.
The servers used by OOo are physically located in the US.
The majority of participants on the OOo mailing lists have email
addresses that are physically located in the US.
The appearance is that the most active participants of the various
lists are physically located in the US.
Therefore, it appears to be an unincorporated organization within the
United States. As such, US Federal law would have jurisdiction.
State jurisidiction is more problematic, in that the physical location
of the servers, and participants can not be as easilly determined.
[Majority here does not mean 50% + 1. It means "more than from any
other country. So if there are 11 yankees, 10 kiwis, 9 canucks, 8
ozzies, 7 limeys, and 5 frogs, the US still has the majority, even
though only 22% are yankees.]
>we have no legal existence as a united body
No legal existence as an incorporated body.
There is a legal existence as an unincorporated body.
[There is a considerable amount of case law on the legal existence,
and liabilities of unincorporated bodies in the US.(This is becuase up
to circa 1960, most churches in the US were unincorporated bodies.)]
> Second, I believe that one of the traditions of free and open source
> software is usually not to take any part in politics;
+1
> what are his reasons to contribute to OOo.
That is irrelevent to the issue.
> I agree though that a legal explanation from Sun/Collabnet
would help all of us here pick the best solution, but given
Sun's legal structures I feel it won't come over to us before
a long time.
A much more complete legal explanation from Sun is required.
There is support for languages and locales that are used in countries
that are on the US embargoed list.
> I have come to think to another very frustrating solution but it would be
> still a bit better than the first one
A forked project could accept patches, etc from the main project. The
downside is that few of their contributions could be accepted by the
main project.
> a notice on the KO native-lang site that would say: "all
patches submitted by .... (fill with the name of the SK
Would that really fly with Sun's legal department?
OTOH, there is fairly complete support for at least one language that
is basically only used in one of the countries that is on that
embargoed list.
> What do you think?
Work out a general solution now, because it will come up again.
Does anybody know how ArabEyes handles this situation?
xan
jonathon
--
A Fork requires:
Seven systems with:
1+ GHz Processors
2+ GB RAM
0.25 TB Hard drive space
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
