On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > I think Article 32 is of particular interest in the case of OpenOffice.org > distributions in France. > > It would appear that compliance with Article 30 is not difficult, since > source code is available in all cases. It would be interesting to find out > if the Apache process for declaring cryptographic provisions would be > acceptable to the Prime Minister without further ceremony. It might be > useful for us to package notice of where the details are found in future > distributions so users could be aware that local conditions may apply to > their use of such provisions. > > However, I think it is likely that, so long as the LibreOffice download sites > are not in the US there is not an issue for TDF. If there are LibreOffice > mirrors in the US, that might be reason for concern by the operators of the > mirrors. But we don't get to resolve any of that here. > > It is clear that to be an Apache Software Foundation project, the US > requirements must be satisfied in the manner specified by the ASF. >
But I think that misses the real value of having this paperwork clean and readily available. It isn't really about OpenOffice or LibreOffice end users. And it really isn't about Apache or The Document Foundation. Yes, it is partially about them. But the real point of doing this and doing it well, is to make it possible for others (not Apache and not end users or direct downloads) to distribute/export Apache code. It is to allow Apache modules to be embedded in other applications and then exported. It is to allow OpenOffice.org to be pre-installed on a hardware vendor's laptops and then exported. Pure open source gets off easy in the regulation this days. The government realizes that the code is out there and they accept that. But commercial software vendors and hardware vendors still feel the full weight of these regulations. Having open source components that have their export control paperwork in order makes their lives much easier, and helps the underlying open source software get used more, which in turn may drive more corporate-sponsored developers into the project, more opportunities for consultants, etc. It is part of making OSS easy to consume. It is a win-win situation. -Rob > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthieb...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 18:38 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Request dev help: Info for required crypto export declaration > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > I'm confused, how is that a 'misapprehension' exactly ? > > Are you concerned about compliance with > http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000801164&dateTexte=#LEGISCTA000006136109 > ? > > if not, why not ? are you "under the misapprehension that since [you] > are not in [France], the regulation is irrelevant." ? > > Norbert > >
