> 
> 
> 
> 1) I believe the broader interpretation was intended.
> 2) I believe that if the broader interpretation was enforced, we would
>    have plenty of pro bono legal help from the best law firms.
> 
> Frankly, though, I'm sick of the circus. We have a standing offer from
> people in Finland to host the NetBSD master source machine there, in
> the free part of the world, so that the U.S. users would only import
> NetBSD and never export it. We would scrap our current domestic
> distribution and have a unified distribution integrated by people
> outside the U.S.  It may be worth our doing so.

I don't see how this would help, unless you're proposing that those who
reside in the US (or other places with export restrictions such as
Australia and France) also severely restrict themselves in how they contribute
to the tree.  Most source files for the kernel contain code which
specifically addresses security issues and which could be considered to be
export controlled under a broad interpretation of the ruling.
-ben