On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Uwe Altmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ben, * > > Am 18.06.11 21:37, schrieb BRM: >>> AIUI it would be a good idea for the TDF to consult it's US legal team >>> about whether this is really the case... >>> >> >> Very much so, especially since from what Export Control training I have had, >> even a patch from a developer in the US would be considered an export to >> TDF/LO >> and thereby require an export license. IANAL, and that may fly under the >> radar >> easily; but it is something to have the legal team consider. > > Citing [1]: > "Firms exporting products that are subject to EAR must apply for an > export license, unless the transaction qualifies for a license exception > or “No License Required” (NLR) treatment. When a Shippers Export > Declaration (SED) is required for the export transaction (for shipments > over $2,500 value, those requiring an export license, or those going to > countries that have been designated as terrorist supporting countries), > the ECCN must be provided." > > Obviously, LO is not a Firm nor does the value of the "exported product" > exceed 2.500$. So we need no SED and maybe that qualifies for an NLR > teatment ;-)
Over at Apache, we found compliance quick and easy [1][2][3] Robert [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
