From: M. B. Al-N. <ad...@mb...> - 2010-06-15 19:12:11
|
On 15/06/2010 07:30 م, Mauricio Gomes wrote: > Right now, SF has put the liability risk to the project owners / admins. > It is up to them to flag the product as exportable or not. > > Please see http://sourceforge.net/blog/some-good-news-sourceforge-removes-blanket-blocking/ > > I am no law expert but I think if there are contributors from other > countries and in addition to this considering that mingw is not a > commercial product I would guess the restriction do not apply. But > again, it is not my neck on the line. > > M. Bashir Al-Noimi, I understand you are angry (and rightly so in my > opinion) but I think if your request was in the line of "Could you > please set the flag in your project so that we can continue to access > mingw" it would be more productive. You think that so, sf.net have thousands of projects that means we've to send thousands of messages to tell projects admins for this problem.. do you think this is practical procedure? All what I understand open source must be opened not forbids! > Calling racists people who provide > good free services and that are under law restrictions is not > productive and a little harsh in my opinion. > If you read the link provided before you'll find that sf.net didn't hear from us until some big projects warning them and promised that if they didn't find a solution they will move at once. but sf.net was clever and found an evil solution by putting forbidding tick. in this way they absorbed the storm quietly although the problem didn't fixed at all. > I know this is not the forum for political discussions but I could not > resist ... If you allow me I would like to recommend the following > book: > http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179 > This is real situation don't mix it with political propaganda, forbidding policy strike the sole of open source licenses. It's huge problem with simple solution, but nobody in sf.net really want to fix. > Best regards, > Mau. > > 2010/6/15 Earnie<ea...@us...>: > >> M. Bashir Al-Noimi wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Lately sf.net<http://sf.net> forbids many open source projects although >>> most these projects are not owned by sourceforge, so I(we) suffer a lot >>> because of their racism policy (They said they've to apply the law but >>> this isn't full truth) so I encourage MinGW admin to migrate this >>> project from sf.net<http://sf.net> to another open source hosting which >>> real free, real applying FOSS principles, or at least allow me(us) to >>> download MinGW by activating related tick from MinGW admin webpage... >>> for more information read the following please: >>> >>> http://arabcrunch.com/2010/01/following-clintons-internet-freedom-speech-us-based-sourceforge-blocked-syria-sudan-iran-korea-cuba-is-open-source-still-really-open.html >>> http://sourceforge.net/blog/clarifying-sourceforgenets-denial-of-site-access-for-certain-persons-in-accordance-with-us-law/ >>> http://sourceforge.net/blog/some-good-news-sourceforge-removes-blanket-blocking/ >>> >>> >> 1) SourceForge is a United States of America company and must follow >> United States of America laws including sanctions placed on corporations >> toward delivery of product to certain other countries. >> >> 2) We are not moving to another VCS other than CVS for the sake of just >> moving. We will continue to use CVS until we are forced by SF itself to >> move to a different VCS. >> >> 3) We will continue to put up with SourceForge and its changes to their >> UI since moving to another site would just mean more work than any of >> the contributors want to give. >> >> -- Best Regards Muhammad Bashir Al-Noimi My Blog: http://mbnoimi.net |