Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 05/11/06, Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
All content is hosted in and ultimately served
from the United States.
</not a lawyer and cannot speak to legal issues>
OK, my previous statement was possibly incorrect, then. But out of
interest, was there a formal decision to only have content-hosting
machines in the US? Or is it only a fact of convenience (since I think
that's where all the main devs are located)?
Physical location of software developers is highly irrelevant; I'm
usually in the US but nobody else is. :)
Our current main hosting center was I think chosen mainly because it was
convenient to where Jimmy relocated himself and his company a few years
ago, and Wikipedia went along for the ride.
Choosing someplace outside the US wouldn't have made much sense for a US
machines one day be hosted in Europe? (seems the most likely next
Hypothetically content-hosting machines could one day be located
anywhere. In reality this depends on a number of factors, chiefly:
It's far, far, far, far, far, far easier and more reliable to keep
things centralized, hence our abandonment of the limited experiment with
a second content cluster.
On this basis alone it's unlikely we'll add content-bearing servers in
new locations in the forseeable future. (And if it does happen, they'll
need more hands-on operations.)
Operating in another jurisdiction may have legal ramifications, the
details of which may or may not be acceptable.
At the least, adding more jurisdictions will add to uncertainty. I can't
speak for the foundation about what would be considered acceptable or
Apparently the Korea experiment was considered acceptable on this basis,
but I never really got a clear view from WMF on this issue.
IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com