On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Danese Cooper <dan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> > > >> <snip> >> > > >> >> 1) Was something similar every done for OpenOffice.org? Most software >> >> companies are aware of this US export regulation and do this >> >> declaration as a matter of routine. But not all open source projects >> >> are as diligent as ASF is. So it is possible that OOo never did this >> >> before. But if they did, we could reuse much of their paperwork. >> > >> > AFAIR Sun did that some time ago, but I'm not 100% sure. >> > > Yes, Sun did this (probably for every official "release"). >
If so, this might have been kept on the corporate side, not on the community website. For example, searching Google for "site:openoffice.org ECCN" shows several requests for this information [1] [2] [3] over the years, but no useful responses. Looks like LO discussed it briefly [4], but dismissed it under the misapprehension that since they are not in the US, the regulation is irrelevant. We'll obviously want to do better here. It may not make a much of a difference to the individual downloaded of AOOo, but this paperwork is essential for anyone who might want to bundle AOOo with laptops, for example. The location of the project is not the solitary relevant fact. The location of the users and re-distributors is the key thing. [1] http://openoffice.org/projects/www/lists/users/archive/2004-12/message/24 [2] http://openoffice.org/projects/marketing/lists/dev/archive/2005-11/message/204 [3] http://openoffice.org/projects/www/lists/users/archive/2009-12/message/653 [4] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/6138 I'll check what we did for IBM Lotus Symphony. -Rob > Danese >
