You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2013/10/01 22:27:51 UTC
Re: ECCN crypto check
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:20:20 +0200
Stefan Bodewig <st...@freenet.de> wrote:
> On 2013-09-17, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Stefan Bodewig
> > <st...@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> >> And then I was told to follow the old process the page calls
> >> outdated. Which I did.
>
> > OK. So, just to be clear.
>
> > There was communication with the SFLC regarding the Commons Compress
> > ECCN's requirement. The SFLC told Commons Compress guidance to use
> > the process described at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html.
>
> > Correct?
>
> No, sorry.
>
> There was communication between me an the legal-discuss list and Bill
> Rowe told me to use the old process - nobody else responded.
>
> As was the case when I sent the notices for Ant or Ivy years ago I
> never received any response from the .gov addresses I sent the
> notification to.
I believe there was one additional response to the thread in question,
which pointed out errata to the TSU exception which has supposedly made
things simpler and eliminated some reporting requirements under the TSU
exemption, but for the life of me I haven't been able to decipher what
the actual impact on the ASF really is.
We really seem overdue for an executive summary from the SFLC explaining
precisely what was simplified by the new guidance, relative to our old
processes and procedures. But that would be an action item on the VP
of legal affairs, since no one other should be placing either paid or
pro bono tasks on ASF counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ECCN crypto check
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
So I've started on the process, 2 questions-
1. Step 2 - update the site. I updated the site in svn, but I think the
website is based off of a different code base, I think. Am I supposed to
upload the eccnmatrix.xml over the existing one or am I missing something?
2. Step 3 - notify USG. The PMC sent the email, but based on other people,
there is no response coming from these URLs? Should I wait for one or just
go ahead to step 4 (updating the readme)?
Thanks
John
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:03 AM, John Vines <jv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So it sounds like I should follow the old procedure even though it's not
> necessarily correct. Is this accurate?
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:20:20 +0200
>> Stefan Bodewig <st...@freenet.de> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2013-09-17, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Stefan Bodewig
>> > > <st...@freenet.de> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> And then I was told to follow the old process the page calls
>> > >> outdated. Which I did.
>> >
>> > > OK. So, just to be clear.
>> >
>> > > There was communication with the SFLC regarding the Commons Compress
>> > > ECCN's requirement. The SFLC told Commons Compress guidance to use
>> > > the process described at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html.
>> >
>> > > Correct?
>> >
>> > No, sorry.
>> >
>> > There was communication between me an the legal-discuss list and Bill
>> > Rowe told me to use the old process - nobody else responded.
>> >
>> > As was the case when I sent the notices for Ant or Ivy years ago I
>> > never received any response from the .gov addresses I sent the
>> > notification to.
>>
>> I believe there was one additional response to the thread in question,
>> which pointed out errata to the TSU exception which has supposedly made
>> things simpler and eliminated some reporting requirements under the TSU
>> exemption, but for the life of me I haven't been able to decipher what
>> the actual impact on the ASF really is.
>>
>> We really seem overdue for an executive summary from the SFLC explaining
>> precisely what was simplified by the new guidance, relative to our old
>> processes and procedures. But that would be an action item on the VP
>> of legal affairs, since no one other should be placing either paid or
>> pro bono tasks on ASF counsel.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> ~John
>
Re: ECCN crypto check
Posted by John Vines <jv...@gmail.com>.
So it sounds like I should follow the old procedure even though it's not
necessarily correct. Is this accurate?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:20:20 +0200
> Stefan Bodewig <st...@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> > On 2013-09-17, Kevan Miller wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:05 PM, Stefan Bodewig
> > > <st...@freenet.de> wrote:
> >
> > >> And then I was told to follow the old process the page calls
> > >> outdated. Which I did.
> >
> > > OK. So, just to be clear.
> >
> > > There was communication with the SFLC regarding the Commons Compress
> > > ECCN's requirement. The SFLC told Commons Compress guidance to use
> > > the process described at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html.
> >
> > > Correct?
> >
> > No, sorry.
> >
> > There was communication between me an the legal-discuss list and Bill
> > Rowe told me to use the old process - nobody else responded.
> >
> > As was the case when I sent the notices for Ant or Ivy years ago I
> > never received any response from the .gov addresses I sent the
> > notification to.
>
> I believe there was one additional response to the thread in question,
> which pointed out errata to the TSU exception which has supposedly made
> things simpler and eliminated some reporting requirements under the TSU
> exemption, but for the life of me I haven't been able to decipher what
> the actual impact on the ASF really is.
>
> We really seem overdue for an executive summary from the SFLC explaining
> precisely what was simplified by the new guidance, relative to our old
> processes and procedures. But that would be an action item on the VP
> of legal affairs, since no one other should be placing either paid or
> pro bono tasks on ASF counsel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers
~John