Debian or Arch or Ubuntu never ask for my confirmation ?
Example :
You acknowledge that openSUSE Leap 15.3 is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (the “EAR”) and you agree to comply with the EAR. You will not export or re-export openSUSE Leap 15.3 directly or indirectly, to: (1) any countries that are subject to US export restrictions; (2) any end user who you know or have reason to know will utilize openSUSE Leap 15.3 in the design, development or production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or rocket systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets, or unmanned air vehicle systems, except as authorized by the relevant government agency by regulation or specific license; or (3) any end user who has been prohibited from participating in the US export transactions by any federal agency of the US government. By downloading or using openSUSE Leap 15.3, you are agreeing to the foregoing and you are representing and warranting that You are not located in,under the control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list. In addition, you are responsible for complying with any local laws in Your jurisdiction which may impact Your right to import, export or use openSUSE Leap 15.3. Please consult the Bureau of Industry and Security web page www.bis.doc.gov before exporting items subject to the EAR. It is your responsibility to obtain any necessary export approvals.
Its a CYA for SUSE. Certain technologies aren’t permitted to be shared outside of USA unless you go through the ETAR and assign if it commerically restricted/unrestricted, etc. If you are in USA you are bound by this anyway, even without a EULA.
They don’t know what you may install or transfer, even though it is opensource and you could download in another country.
We get hung up with this at work. We may have a software issue and send to USA parent company for review, they then need to know if the data represents a certain class so they can direct where (country) the software review or fix can be sent for evaluation.
There are obious things like military, but then there are commercial, transit infrastructure, aero, etc.
But it can get stupid, like the parent company received a CAD file I sent in as a demomstration of a display bug. i made a cube 4x4x4. the agent wanted to know what ETAR class it was, I argued it isn’t because it is a cube I made as demo only, they would not review till i choose a class from a long list. None applied. But I had to pick one for them to proceed. So somewhere some guy is doing data chain of custody on a cube. lol
In cases where it does fall into restricted commercial interest or other restrictions only a USA citizen can work on the data.
This agreement poses no restrictiona on you that aren’t already present if you are in the USA. And you shouldn’t need to worry, unless you actively are designing or stealing data to hand over to a USA “enemy” for purposes of espionage , war, weapons etc
Certain technologies aren’t permitted to be shared outside of USA unless you go through the ETAR
I’m guessing you mean ITAR, if anyone’s having trouble searching for it.
Yeah sorry EAR, and ITAR.
Its a CYA for SUSE. Certain technologies aren’t permitted to be shared outside of USA unless you go through the ETAR and assign if it commerically restricted/unrestricted, etc. If you are in USA you are bound by this anyway, even without a EULA.
Thanks. Yes, I noticed that openSUSE mentions it takes its sources from SLES Enterprise version (and Fedora is connected with RedHat RHLE Enterprise USA) so I guess that’s where the corporate lawyers started chiming in :)
Yeah, exactly. with OpenSUSE having SUSE binaries I’m sure they legal mumbo jumbo just tranafers for covering all scenarios
Cya?
Cover Your Ass. i.e. avoiding trouble from the Washington regime
Cover Your Ass
This has to do with encryption protocols. Offhand my assumption is either they are trying to be extra cautious as the rules are incredibly complex, or they have a different algorithm included by default that would be subject to those rules.
It is my limited understanding that encryption beyond a certain level is illegal to export from the US. For example one of the positives of OpenBSD being based in Canada
wasis the ability to include crypto at a level that that the US wouldn’t permit to export.From https://www.openbsd.org/crypto.html
Edit: tense
Wouldn’t at the time. A lot of the restrictions on encryption algorithms themselves were loosened in the 90s after successful court cases ruling that source code was free speech.
It hasn’t been illegal for a while now. Encryption is protected under free speech. (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in our favor)
OpenBSD being based in Canada
Huh, TIL… That’s cool!
deleted by creator
There are no legal restrictions on cryptography in the US as software is protected under free speech.
There are no legal restrictions on cryptography in the US
That’s not what a quick search and Wikipedia says. To be fair, I didn’t fact check all their references:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States
SuSE and RH have their own legal teams who have combed through all of this and have decided not to chance it. Personally, I wouldn’t base a significant part of the foundation of any product on something as fickle as a Supreme Court ruling, especially when the product is something major from a group like SuSE or RH.
There isn’t much to “chance”. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the authority in the matter.
Some organizations just don’t take no for an answer
On October 15, 2003, almost nine years after Bernstein first brought the case, the judge dismissed it and asked Bernstein to come back when the government made a “concrete threat”.
It helps to actually read the wikipedia pages.
I did, that doesn’t change anything
Cryptography is protected under the first amendment
A while back the NSA tried to argue it was a weapon and subject to weapons export restrictions but that was shot down in court
Out of curiosity, would they be subject to these laws/protocols/regulations if they are (developers or organization) based in the US, but offer releases hosted elsewhere in the world AND/OR develop the product with code hosted elsewhere in the world?
It’s one of those bureacratic things. You could download OpenSUSE in a restricted country and install it, but if you were in the USA and transfered the data to a restricted country you would be in violation of ETAR restrictions, even without the EULA
I guess it’s because US laws likes to pretend to be in force world wide … which they are not.
They ARE in force for exports…including software.
No, they are not. Sovereign countries are bound by the WTO (World Trade Organisation), not US export laws.
“Among other restrictions, US federal law controls the export of strong cryptographic materials, which are classified as a munition. Under these restrictions, the Fedora Project cannot export or provide Fedora software to any forbidden entity, including through the FreeMedia program”
You should let Fedora know that.
To avoid being sanctioned themselves
It’s helpful to follow if you want to deal with the US government
Because their lawyers said so. Canonical is based in England so their lawyers didn’t say so. I don’t know where the Debian project is based. OpenSUSE is based in Germany so I’m not sure why they feel the need, but I assume that’s what the lawyers said they need to do.
Debian doesn’t have a legal entity, it’s based out of nowhere. Always has been.
Debian is legally part of Software in the Public Interest, Inc., which it also founded.
No it isn’t. The foundation only holds on to the trademarks and logos. It also allows the group to hold funds.
The project itself isn’t held, led, or otherwise directed by the foundation.
Eh, you’re right.
The legal identity of an SPI associated project is not changed through their association with SPI, nor does it become part of SPI
It was founded for donations. Hard to do if they aren’t legally associated.
Not at all hard to do. The foundation receives funds and gives them out to whomever. That’s it.
I don’t know where the Debian project is based.
Trademark and at least some copyright for the project is owned by an entity in the New York and Ian Murdoch who started the project was US citizen. But calling the whole project as USA based is wrong, it is based ‘on the internet’ as even the core team is spread across the globe.
Maybe because Suse company wants to make business in USA.
OP says openSUSE changed hands many times since then
Check out https://wiki.debian.org/USExportControl
oh yeah, I’m sure that’ll work 👍
about as effective as a mystical incantationI kind of feel coerced by that text into sending a copy of OpenSUSE Leap to some obscure nuclear missile programme now, just for the sake of it
Why don’t you use a distro that doesn’t have such terms?
They can do that, but that’s not the topic of the post.
They all technically are subject to the same terms, they just don’t bug you about it the way suse does
So if I help someone in Sudan, Syria or Iran to install Debian GNU/Linux I can be arrested by means of USA law, right ?
No, not if you’re not American
Possibly, though extremely unlikely. They wouldn’t care unless you were doing it to help set up a nuclear weapons program or something.
This also assumes you’re American, or working from the US. If you’re French and working from France, for example, you’d be subject to French law, not American law.
deleted by creator
It seems it’s often unclear whether it does. A user under this post has linked Debian’s wiki page that writes about this, and they don’t have a definitive answer either, just pointers on how to make sure that you are safe
Code should be protected under the first amendment
Sure, but again. That is only legally binding in US jurisdiction?
Only binding in the USA. Thoroughly ignored outside of it.
Source code is — Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice
Thanks for mentioning this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
The government modified the regulations again, substantially loosening them, and Bernstein, now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, challenged them again. This time, he chose to represent himself, although he had no formal legal training. On October 15, 2003, almost nine years after Bernstein first brought the case, the judge dismissed it and asked Bernstein to come back when the government made a “concrete threat”.
You are correct
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Maybe consult the literature they linked? I don’t know what special enlightenment you received that you know better than anyone else in the world about the US Constitution First Amendment, but regardless, in the scope of the topic (cryptographic algorithms), they are completely right.
Why doesn’t it? The wiki of that case states that source code is protected under the 1st Amendment. So what’s the problem?
There’s no free speech under capitalism.
There is free speech in pretty much every capitalist country on the planet, but not in a single communist or socialist country of the present or past.
Keep your Communist ideals out if this please
I thought OpenSUSE is German, so why would you export it?
The only rationale is that it ships with cryptography that’s made in 'murica and probably stored in US servers, hence the export warning.
openSUSE has German origins, but was bought in the past by Novell in USA, then went into other USA hands, and then it was sold to a Swedish company’s German sub division, and located in Luxembourg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_S.A.
And then they continued by not implementing the certified format correctly in Office anyway.
Enter the hefty fines. Like 5% of last year’s revenue.
Wait a minute, so using Fedora in Cuba (for example) is illegal?
If it is for the Government of Cuba then yes. However, individuals can utilize the software.
Just the transmitting the export restricted (mostly cryptography algorithms) parts from the us directly or indirectly
That is the reason I will never be found using Fedora.
