Thread Subject: We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!

if anybody enter mathworks.com in Iran, see this:

Access Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://www.mathworks.com/" on
this server.

Reference #18.8a8dd58.1259074323.b793b5

it is just against human rights!

mathworks.com must be open to all of the world includes Persian
people.

We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!

mathworks.ir is my own website for irannian users but no support by
The Mathworks.


help us with

http://www.petitiononline.com/iran2010/petition.html

And what makes you think that it's The Mathworks that's banning it and
not the Iranian government, or the US government, or the United
Nations sanctions? Show us your proof of how you found out that it's
The Mathworks that is doing the banning. Without this, your petition
is totally meaningless.

ImageAnalyst <imageanalyst@mailinator.com> wrote in message <7617ee7a-5fd0-4ab4-8039-1900e9b7e626@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>...
> And what makes you think that it's The Mathworks that's banning it and
> not the Iranian government, or the US government, or the United
> Nations sanctions? Show us your proof of how you found out that it's
> The Mathworks that is doing the banning. Without this, your petition
> is totally meaningless.

Adding to that: Banning certain people from viewing particular information is not in and of itself a violation of human rights. Get real.

Dear Matt Fig!

> Adding to that: Banning certain people from viewing particular information is not in and of itself a violation of human rights. Get real.

I'm physicist, neither a lawyer nor an expert in human rights.
Reading "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", I do not agree with you:

Artikel 19
  http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Artikel 27
  http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a27
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Nevertheless, this is not related to Matlab and I think, that we should not discuss this here.

In opposite to that, the question, who is responsible for the web-censorship, is -or is not- Matlab related. Who is the right person to ask?

Kind regards, Jan

"Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message
> I'm physicist, neither a lawyer nor an expert in human rights.
> Reading "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", I do not agree with you:

So the fact that all governments in the world have secret information (military intelligence, secret communication codes, etc.) that some people know and that others don't, is a violation of human rights? Sorry Jan, but that is silly nonsense.

In article <heh1dg$ic3$1@fred.mathworks.com>,
Matt Fig <spamanon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Adding to that: Banning certain people from viewing particular
>information is not in and of itself a violation of human rights. Get
>real.

Yes, but *MATLAB*??

Francis

Dear Matt Fig!

> "Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message
> > I'm physicist, neither a lawyer nor an expert in human rights.
> > Reading "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", I do not agree with you:
>
> So the fact that all governments in the world have secret information (military intelligence, secret communication codes, etc.) that some people know and that others don't, is a violation of human rights? Sorry Jan, but that is silly nonsense.

I do agree, that it is silly nonsense, that the existence of secret communication codes should violate human rights. No need to say sorry for that, Matt.
But as far as I understand, nobody spoke about "military intelligence, secret communication codes, etc.", but the OP's problem is the censorship of www.mathworks.com.

It is my opinion, that the cited two articles of "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" published by the UN, conern the free access of the WWW. I cannot find anything silly or any nonsense in these articles or my conclusion.
You are really welcome to have your own opinion about that and publish it (see article 19!).

Kind regards, Jan

pouriya wrote:
> if anybody enter mathworks.com in Iran, see this:
>
> Access Denied
> You don't have permission to access "http://www.mathworks.com/" on
> this server.
>
> Reference #18.8a8dd58.1259074323.b793b5
>
> it is just against human rights!
>
> mathworks.com must be open to all of the world includes Persian
> people.
>
> We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!
>
> mathworks.ir is my own website for irannian users but no support by
> The Mathworks.
>
>
> help us with
...

While I can commiserate w/ you on a personal level, in actuality you'll
probably have more success in dealing w/ your own government to change
their behavior that is the root cause of the problem.

See following link for quick background on what I'd be pretty confident
is the basis for TMW's actions--

<http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/ascii/iran.txt>

--

If you read the link dpb provided, you'll see this:

"On August 19, 1997, the President signed Executive Order 13059
clarifying Executive Orders 12957 and 12959 and confirming that
virtually all trade and investment activities with Iran by U.S.
persons, wherever located, are prohibited."

That pretty much explains it. The Mathworks is simply following the
law of their country and any petition is therefore futile.

Dear dpb!
Thanks for this link! Very helpful.

Dear ImageAnalyst!

> If you read the link dpb provided, you'll see this:
>
> "On August 19, 1997, the President signed Executive Order 13059
> clarifying Executive Orders 12957 and 12959 and confirming that
> virtually all trade and investment activities with Iran by U.S.
> persons, wherever located, are prohibited."
>
> That pretty much explains it. The Mathworks is simply following the
> law of their country and any petition is therefore futile.

Does "all trade and investment activities" really involve the visibility of www.mathworks.com -- e.g. this forum?

I found:
"the Agreement indicates that the U.S. Company will be providing online customer support. The provision of such services to Iran would be prohibited by ITR ?560.204"
in:
http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iran/int_guide/ia070803.pdf
The forum is an "online customer support", I think, and in consequence it is concerned by the Executive Order 13059.

US Executive orders and laws of a country can intefere with Human Rights - as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons (or software to design such weapons) can. Lukily, laws are subject to changes and petitions are not necessairly futile.

I leave this discussion here and visit a professer for international laws to clarify my questions.
Thanks pouriya, dpb and ImageAnalyst, Jan

Jan Simon wrote:
> Dear dpb!
> Thanks for this link! Very helpful.
...
> Does "all trade and investment activities" really involve the
> visibility of www.mathworks.com -- e.g. this forum?
>
> I found: "the Agreement indicates that the U.S. Company will be
> providing online customer support. The provision of such services to
> Iran would be prohibited by ITR ?560.204" in:
> http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iran/int_guide/ia070803.pdf
> The forum is an "online customer support", I think, and in
> consequence it is concerned by the Executive Order 13059.
>
> US Executive orders and laws of a country can intefere with Human
> Rights - as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons (or software
> to design such weapons) can. Lukily, laws are subject to changes and
> petitions are not necessairly futile.
>
> I leave this discussion here and visit a professer for international
> laws to clarify my questions. Thanks pouriya, dpb and ImageAnalyst,
> Jan

I'm not sure what questions you have -- of course, law can prohibit
actions of those under their purveyance; otherwise there would be no
such thing as law.

I have a difficult time thinking that access to a corporate entity is
somehow a fundamental human right; but that's me...

 From a practical standpoint, if OP has internet access, there are ways
outside TMW to access c.s-s.m (as is clear by his posting here); all
that has been denied is direct technical support from a corporate entity
which again, I would find a stretch to imply is a "human right".

--

> I'm not sure what questions you have -- of course, law can prohibit
> actions of those under their purveyance; otherwise there would be no
> such thing as law.

an interesting one for a starter would be "how did you get Matlab at all ?", given the status of commercial relationships between US and Iran.
But I guess anyone living in teh real world can figure out the answer to it .....

Jan Simon wrote:
...
> US Executive orders and laws of a country can intefere with Human
> Rights - as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons (or software
> to design such weapons) can. Lukily, laws are subject to changes and
> petitions are not necessairly futile.
>

As well as your excerpt, you might read further which is (imo) more
apropos to the "human rights" end of it...

"o PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION AND INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS -
The receipt or transmission of postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other
personal communications, which does not involve the transfer of anything
of value, between the United States and Iran is authorized. The
exportation from the United States to Iran of information and
informational materials, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of
format or medium of transmission, and any transaction incident to such
exportation is authorized."

That's pretty open and broad for personal freedoms.

Again, on the futility of petitions, it would be far more productive to
work to change the behaviors that resulted in the situation that it will
be to try to change the response (again, imo).

--

"Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message <hehbjp$190$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Dear Matt Fig!
>
> > Adding to that: Banning certain people from viewing particular information is not in and of itself a violation of human rights. Get real.
>
> I'm physicist, neither a lawyer nor an expert in human rights.
> Reading "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights", I do not agree with you:
>
> Artikel 19
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
>
> Artikel 27
> http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a27
> Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
===============================

The thing I find striking is how broadly interpretable, and hence unimplementable, the articles in this Declaration are over all. Surely, there must have been a few lawyers and international law specialists involved in the drafting of this thing. Accordingly, you'd think there would be a few qualifying paragraphs to go with these articles, explaining the limitations on things like "freedom to receive information" or "scientific achievement and its benefits" . The Renter's Agreement for my apartment is a more detailed legal document than this...

 

Matt wrote:
...

> The thing I find striking is how broadly interpretable, and hence
> unimplementable, the articles in this Declaration are over all. Surely,
> there must have been a few lawyers and international law specialists
> involved in the drafting of this thing. Accordingly, you'd think there
> would be a few qualifying paragraphs to go with these articles,
> explaining the limitations on things like "freedom to receive
> information" or "scientific achievement and its benefits" . The Renter's
> Agreement for my apartment is a more detailed legal document than this...

Hey, it's the UN--all about sound bites and not offend anybody be
everything to everybody platitudes utopia...

--

Dear Matt!

> The thing I find striking is how broadly interpretable, and hence unimplementable, the articles in this Declaration are over all.
> ...
> The Renter's Agreement for my apartment is a more detailed legal document than this...

I'm sure, the Renter's Agreements of the people, which have been killed in the prisons of Iran (just as an example! Except for the south pole, there have been violations of the human rights in every country) have been more detailed also.

But when I'm walking on the street and meet a policemen -today in Germany- I can be rather (still not absolutely, e.g. still depending on the color of the skin sometimes) sure, that he/she will support my human right according to:
  Articel 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
This has not been the case 70 years ago in Germany 21 years ago in the eastern part of Germany.
I do not think, that this is the merit of stubborn, local thinking, greedy politicians. And it is surely not the merit of experts for tenancy laws.
If a government does not care for human rights, the Renter's Agreements are not worth the paper, they are written on.

Currently the OP does not take part on this discussion. What a pitty.

Jan

Jan Simon wrote:
...
> But when I'm walking on the street and meet a policemen -today in
> Germany- I can be rather (still not absolutely, e.g. still depending
> on the color of the skin sometimes) sure, that he/she will support my
> human right according to:
> Articel 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
> This has not been the case 70 years ago in Germany 21 years ago in
> the eastern part of Germany.
> I do not think, that this is the merit of stubborn, local thinking,
greedy politicians. And it is surely not the merit of experts for
tenancy laws.
> If a government does not care for human rights, the Renter's
Agreements are not worth the paper, they are written on.
>
> Currently the OP does not take part on this discussion. What a pitty.
>
> Jan

That level of rights/security is a wholly different animal indeed from
what OP was complaining about which is simply one of access to a
commercial product. I still can't see any fundamental human rights
issues in this.

He might as well be wanting to buy an American-made anything; there's no
difference except for foodstuffs, medicines, etc., which are expressly
permitted on humanitarian grounds.

And, more to the point, his right to c.s-s.m as an individual isn't
encumbered other than the TMW portal but there's no need for it anyway
since c.s-s.m is an open usenet group. In fact, I'd say odds would be
quite high that if OP posted on-topic questions through such other
access point they would be answered just as any other posters'.

In fact, it's unlikely imo that the occasional TMW employee responder
specifically looks to see where the poster is posting from so there's
probably at least a reasonable chance if the question were one that
caught the attention of one of these individuals they would respond as
well w/o bothering to check on the nationality.

Certainly there's little point in petitions against TMW for OP--his
argument isn't really w/ them, anyway. They're simply carrying out
directives under which they must operate within the rules of law within
the country of their origin. If anything, the petition should be
addressed to the US Government since it is their directive.

OTOH, as noted, it's the actions of OP's government that have raised the
issues which the actions of the US (and in no insignificant part, the UN
as well which indicates it isn't totally a unilateral thing in this
case). It would seem the real way to resolve OP's problem would be to
work to resolve that underlying root-cause problem.

--

Dear dpb!

> Certainly there's little point in petitions against TMW for OP--his
> argument isn't really w/ them, anyway.

I'm wondering if the petition is "against" TWM, or perhaps "for" TWM. The interests of the Matlab users (buyers! the source of money) are the interests of the Matlab sellers.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your posting, dpb.

I'm waiting for some comments of the OP. Jan

Jan Simon wrote:
> Dear dpb!
>
>> Certainly there's little point in petitions against TMW for OP--his
>> argument isn't really w/ them, anyway.
>
> I'm wondering if the petition is "against" TWM, or perhaps "for" TWM.
> The interests of the Matlab users (buyers! the source of money) are the
> interests of the Matlab sellers.

My specific point is that it wasn't TMW's decision to make hence it's
not theirs to make to drop the block. Since the prohibition is one of
the US Government, the only possible way a petition could have any
effect would be to request an exemption specifically for TMW or a change
of overall policy; it's patently absurd to expect TMW to contravene US
law/executive order which would risk both corporate and personal
prosecution the potential costs of which would likely risk the entire
organization. Hardly worth it monetarily for a few licenses if one
thinks of it.

And, of course, saying they did choose to risk such possible sanctions
raises the specter of whether TMW might then be characterized somewhat
as your previous characterization of politicians etc. -- interested only
in the money and not the possible ramifications of perhaps supporting
uses of their product for purposes which possibly would be detrimental
to the larger good...we can only hope he's not one actively engaged in
such endeavors.

That is however a far larger discussional morass than even this one as,
of course, there are entities which are in non-restricted areas with
similar potential uses--only one hopes their intentions remain honorable...

> I absolutely agree with the rest of your posting, dpb.
>
> I'm waiting for some comments of the OP. Jan

I suspect we'll continue to wait. IMO OP hasn't thought this through
fully; he probably only sees individual frustration of not having full
continuing access to something he likely had available earlier in
university outside his native land (taking an extreme wag as to the
circumstances here).

If he's lurking, hopefully the discussion has raised some level of
consciousness of the larger issues.

--

dpb wrote:
> Jan Simon wrote:
...

>> I'm waiting for some comments of the OP. Jan
>
> I suspect we'll continue to wait. IMO OP hasn't thought this through
> fully; he probably only sees individual frustration of not having full
> continuing access to something he likely had available earlier in
> university outside his native land (taking an extreme wag as to the
> circumstances here).
>
> If he's lurking, hopefully the discussion has raised some level of
> consciousness of the larger issues.

And, of course, the wording chosen for the posting subject probably
didn't endear OP to most of his prospective audience, either... :)

I had one last thought on the cssm accessibility and perhaps TMW
employees answering queries anyway, by not overtly noting nationality.
Since I presume all of them do use the TMW interface portal, I suppose
its possible their blocking software might look at routings and not
allow such messages to show up even if posted elsewhere on usenet thru
google or wherever. I've no clue on that one...

As an individual as I noted in my first response I can feel some empathy
for OPs circumstances but don't see it as a fundamental right being
abridged only that of being inconvenienced.

--

Dear dpb!
 
> > If he's lurking, hopefully the discussion has raised some level of
> > consciousness of the larger issues.

Have you visited his page mathworks.ir?
Looks really professional. And he states, that this website has no support of TMW. Remarkable.

Jan

"Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message <helmvr$c2r$1@fred.mathworks.com>...

> But when I'm walking on the street and meet a policemen -today in Germany- I can be rather (still not absolutely, e.g. still depending on the color of the skin sometimes) sure, that he/she will support my human right according to:
> Articel 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
===================

Perhaps, but perhaps not because of the Article, but rather because of local laws. And, as I was really trying to point out, local laws don't/can't embrace the Article as broadly as it is stated. If the policeman suspects you of a crime, for example, your right to liberty is potentially forfeit, a qualificiation the Article doesn't make.

Jan Simon wrote:
> Dear dpb!
>
>>> If he's lurking, hopefully the discussion has raised some level
>>> of consciousness of the larger issues.
>
> Have you visited his page mathworks.ir? Looks really professional.
> And he states, that this website has no support of TMW. Remarkable.
>

Well, I hadn't, no...certainly of some use for his cohorts, undoubtedly
altho I note a marked absence of actual recognition of the owners of the
(tm) and other rights to the name "Matlab" and such... :) Undoubtedly
that wouldn't endear our OP to TMW even without the political issues
underlying his current endeavor...

--

I demand the source code to MATLAB!

The MathWorks witholding their source code is clearly in contravention of my human rights...

Oh, wait... they're a commercial organisation, and completely within their rights to withold products or services except where contractually bound.

Dear Thomas!

> I demand the source code to MATLAB!
>
> The MathWorks witholding their source code is clearly in contravention of my human rights...
>
> Oh, wait... they're a commercial organisation, and completely within their rights to withold products or services except where contractually bound.

The OP wants to visit a public website, which is available for the majority of peoples on the earth. He does not want anything illegal as secret sources codes owned by a company.

Imagine he is a young scientist, he has some new ideas and he wants to use Matlab to calculate new outcome. But he is not allowed to buy Matlab (by the way: this was not his problem!), because his president behaves such, that a noticable part of the rest of the world is in fear, that his country plans to build nuclear weapons.

What are his chances? Vote for another president. Leave the country. Use SciPy. Start a petition. Start a revolution. Learn German and surf to www.mathworks.de (does this work?!?).

What would you do, Thomas, if some hard politicians in your country or in the USA cut your connection to www.mathworks? What would we think, if Bruno, Matt, James, ImageAnalyst, Rune, Dave, Steven, us, Yair, John, Matt Fig and dpb are excluded from this newsgroup, because they are living in the wrong country?
Would we joke about their ridiculous human rights? Of course, because this a newsgroup for scientific software, and not the real life.

I admit: This is a theoretical thought only. As we've seen, pouriya *has* access to this newsgroup. Or *had*?

Kind regards, Jan

Jan,

My last post contained a metaphor... I apologise if it was not to your taste - but please don't spin my comment as "joking about [the OP's] ridiculous human rights" since that wasn't what I was doing. The post was to illustrated the point that the OP demanded (fairly forcefully, considering s/he was making a request!!) something of the Mathworks which it absolutely is not their obligation to provide, particularly in the light of the legal arguments above pertaining to Trade Sanctions.

An abstract response to your question: If I felt that I was living in a dangerously oppresive, anti-US state, I probably wouldn't start a petition about not having access to US websites.

A personal response to your question: Without Bruno, ImageAnalyst, Rune, Steven, us, Yair, John, Matt Fig and dpb (I'd add Tim Davis and Pat to the list), I would be screwed - reading their various posts, and using their shared code I've learned a huge amount. Also, their contributions have helped me overcome some serious hurdles during my PhD - so I'd probably finish late, learn less, and/or hand in a poorer-quality thesis. I'd certainly have struggled, even more than I have in the course of a 'normal' PhD.

So, we can probably all agree that its pretty dismal that the OP has a limited access to this resource. But at no point in my last post did I say that this was fair or right.

Let's give everybody a break from our philosophical argument a moment, to discuss some practical things which could be done:
1. The OP could try Octave. It's a pretty good approximation to MATLAB, available free from mirrors worldwide.
2. Try the UK mirror for mathworks:
http://www.mathworks.co.uk/
3. Buy a copy of the book 'Numerical Computing With MATLAB' or similar, perhaps available through a non-US based online retailer, who isn't bound by trade sanctions.
4. Join comp.soft-sys.matlab which as far as I'm aware is served from various locations around the world and doesn't require a portal through the mathworks.com newsreader.
5. All sorts of MATLAB tutorials etc are available on university sites worldwide.


As a final theoretical point, it should be pointed out that one reason that attempts are made to restrict tools like MATLAB is because they're very useful for designing things like missiles...

... So does the US state department have the resource to distinguish, on a case-by-case basis, which users are likely to be academic and which defence-industry-based?

I personally don't agree with the sanction approach to that particular problem (for a variety of political reasons) but I can certainly see the logic behind sanctions.

Hope this slant helps...

- Tom

Jan Simon wrote:
...
> The OP wants to visit a public website, which is available for the
> majority of peoples on the earth. ...

It is, however, a commercial web site, not a _exactly_ "public" in the
sense of being a service.

--

Dear Thomas!

> My last post contained a metaphor... I apologise if it was not to your taste - but please don't spin my comment as "joking about [the OP's] ridiculous human rights" since that wasn't what I was doing. The post was to illustrated the point that the OP demanded (fairly forcefully, considering s/he was making a request!!) something of the Mathworks which it absolutely is not their obligation to provide, particularly in the light of the legal arguments above pertaining to Trade Sanctions.

Thanks for this clarificaton. I didn't understood that it was a parody and not a joke. I'm not a native speaker, this may cause, that I do not recognize the tone of the OP:

> mathworks.com must be open to all of the world includes Persian people.
> We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!

Does this mean "We demand TMW to cancel banning Iran", or "We need TMW. The one who are responsible for banning Iran: Cancel this."

However, the OP does not explain any details. He mentioned his website and left the discussion. Therefore I'm in doubt, if this was advertising. I see, that one single person signed the petition currently. Who is "we"?

Jan

pouriya <pouriya.niknam@gmail.com> wrote in message <2cd87522-0182-4027-acea-88cc41254188@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>...
> if anybody enter mathworks.com in Iran, see this:
>
> Access Denied
> You don't have permission to access "http://www.mathworks.com/" on
> this server.
>
> Reference #18.8a8dd58.1259074323.b793b5
>
> it is just against human rights!
>
> mathworks.com must be open to all of the world includes Persian
> people.
>
> We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!
>
> mathworks.ir is my own website for irannian users but no support by
> The Mathworks.
>
>

USE A PROXY SERVER.
It is so simple and the internet is full of them. Just use Google (I hope it is still available in Iran).
For example: http://www.hidemyass.com/ (NO!! There is no joke).

Anyhow, banning a website is nothing surprising for me. Mathworks is an US company and every country has the right to decide its own foreign relations with other countries. And by the way, mathworks. com is not a public website.

Jan Simon wrote:
...
>> mathworks.com must be open to all of the world includes Persian
>> people. We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!
>
> Does this mean "We demand TMW to cancel banning Iran", or "We need
> TMW. The one who are responsible for banning Iran: Cancel this."

I would (and did) interpret it as a misunderstanding of the details of
US law and executive order leading to OP thinking TMW had taken the
action of their own (voluntary) volition.

> However, the OP does not explain any details. He mentioned his
> website and left the discussion. Therefore I'm in doubt, if this was
> advertising. I see, that one single person signed the petition
> currently. Who is "we"?

I take that as "the editorial we"...

--

Jan, no problem.

To be honest, I think the problem is not in our English but the OP's - The literal meaning of:

"We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!"

...suggests that TMW are in the process of banning Iran itself (!) and the OP demands they cancel banning it... So it doesn't really make sense to start off with!

Cheers

Tom



"Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message <hes81q$krj$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Dear Thomas!
>
> > My last post contained a metaphor... I apologise if it was not to your taste - but please don't spin my comment as "joking about [the OP's] ridiculous human rights" since that wasn't what I was doing. The post was to illustrated the point that the OP demanded (fairly forcefully, considering s/he was making a request!!) something of the Mathworks which it absolutely is not their obligation to provide, particularly in the light of the legal arguments above pertaining to Trade Sanctions.
>
> Thanks for this clarificaton. I didn't understood that it was a parody and not a joke. I'm not a native speaker, this may cause, that I do not recognize the tone of the OP:
>
> > mathworks.com must be open to all of the world includes Persian people.
> > We Demand The MathWorks, Inc. Cancel banning Iran!
>
> Does this mean "We demand TMW to cancel banning Iran", or "We need TMW. The one who are responsible for banning Iran: Cancel this."
>
> However, the OP does not explain any details. He mentioned his website and left the discussion. Therefore I'm in doubt, if this was advertising. I see, that one single person signed the petition currently. Who is "we"?
>
> Jan