On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthieb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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." ? >> > > You should take a look at the Wassenaar convention. There is a lot > more similarity than you might think between French and US > requirements.
You're missing the point. The point is: it makes a lot of sens of Apache, being legally established in the US, to comply with the export regulation of its host country... but claiming that not paying attention to US regulation for a non-US-based entity is a 'misapprehension' does not make much sens to me. 'France' here was just a convenient example to illustrate the fallacy of the argument. one could find hundreds of jurisdictions with each their own hoops and quirks... most likely some of them contradicting each others. > The diligence you do to satisfy US regulations will > also help you with the regulations in any other countries you, or your > users, need to work with. The French term that best describe this vision of the world is 'nombrilism' (I'm afraid the english translation doesn't quite does it justice.. too literal, doesn't carry the larger meaning, I think) Norbert
