Re: pgFoundry

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:01:45AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
>>>With PostgreSQL *not* US based, we are not subject to the whim's of the 
>>>US government, nor its export restrictions, nor its lawyers ...
>>
>>I am not even going to touch this one.
> 
> 
> Why?

Because I think if you think that having the CVS anywhere will matter to 
the US, I think your dead wrong.

If the US wants to come after the project they are going to one way or 
the other. They will either:

A. Prosecute US developers working on the project
B. Prosecute Non-US developers with countries they have extradition 
treaties with.
C. Send in the army to overthrow your dictator and hunt you.

It doesn't matter either way.

FYI, a US business can rather successfully sue a Canadian one.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the above 3. Frankly it is none 
of anybody's business what I think about it. However I am no fool in 
thinking that another country provides any veil if the US actually wants 
something you have.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc.
  While I wouldn't put the terms exactly the way Marc did, I
> _would_ say that the US approach to "intellectual property" in
> software is sufficiently reaching as to qualify in the "over"
> category.  Canada's rules are bad enough, but having worked under
> both regimes, I'm moderately convinced that having a non-US "home
> base" for CVS is a good idea.
> 
> A
> 


-- 
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/