Re: A followup on github discussion
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 5:56 PM Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 06:39:51PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 09:12:48AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 03:53:50PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > So, dear list,
> > > >
> > > > this is just a quick followup on discrimination practices employed by
> > > > GitHub.
> > > > Today it was brought to my attention that GitHub has restricted access
> > > > to users who live in countries that have US sanctions applied - [1].
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, if somebody is still had any doubts that GitHub does not
> > > > respect software freedoms - leave any hope. GitHub is unsuitable for
> > > > hosting free software.
> > > >
> > > Well, that's a very nice slant you put on the issue. As a public
> > > company in the US, GitHub is expected to respect US law.
> >
> > And last time I've checked, so is Software In Public Interest.
> >
> >
> > > Certainly there are instances where civil disobedience is called for,
> > > but violating export regulations is perhaps not the best choice.
> >
> > And the same logic can be applied to SPI and therefore Debian Project.
> > Or, maybe not?
> >
> Perhaps you are not familiar with Debian project history. There was a
> time when cryptographic software in Debian was hosted outside the US (in
> the "non-US" repository) so that Debian users outside the US could have
> access to strong crypto-enabled packages (e.g., Mozilla with more than
> 40-bit encryption).
>
> Does Debian's respect for US law in that case somehow manifest itself as
> black mark against the project? Should Debian as a project have just
> said, "forget it, we'll host the strong crypto here in the US for
> everybody in the world, even though it is against the law, whatever the
> consequences?"
>
> The laws/regulations around that "strong crypto is a munition" have
> mostly been resolved, thanks in part to the advocacy of people in
> projects, like Debian.
You seem to contradict yourself a bit here - at least if you argue for
GitHub's stance. As you yourself point out, Debian went around the
law. Because of that, no user was affected even while the law was
still relevant. GitHub does not offer a workaround (yet). If they
lobby for that - great. In the meantime, their choice of location seem
to limit their ability to offer the same freedom to everyone.
Reply to: