Great news, and this is a brave thing to do :) Blindly blocking all SF projects to some people was wrong. I said this before, US export laws should only apply to US products. OpenSource/Free software projects should stay "open" and "free/libre" to everybody. Those who worked hard on these projects, including developers from the banned countries, should have the right to decide whether their projects should be blocked or not. Some said the law applies to SF just because they host the projects. If the law was strict to this level then the whole internet should be banned to these countries.

What if Americans wanted their intellectual artifacts (code) to reach people in those countries, does the us government have the right to silent them?

Can you remind me when was the last time the US was attacked by a Syrian terrorist? How come Syria sponsors terrorism but Saudi Arabia does not?
Here are some interesting numbers your government doesn't want you to know

These restrictions were initiated on Syria in 2005. I don't know about the other countries, but I'm pretty sure it all started during the Bush administration. So they're not really that old. But anyway, it's time they changed. The censorship Syrians are getting from the US side probably outweighs the Syrian censorship. Think of it, you can't download a lot of free software, no google apps, no sun JRE, no antiviruses, nothing!

I wasn't talking about licenses, I was talking about the principles of Free Software and Open Source Software, which necessitate no discrimination against any people whatsoever. Whether it's the law or not, it doesn't prevent it from being against the FLOSS very basic principles.
I still can't believe that the US law actually applies to SF. The "export restriction" law cannot/shouldn't be applied to products of collective global work and efforts. What's next, Wikipedia? Slashdot? Google? Why not, they also provide service to people in those countries. And services are products.

Well how about google search and all the American websites, shouldn't they block ban these countries since when someone opens their website some software technology is "transfered" to them (html and javascript code)?

And I'm sorry for the typos in my previous comment!

As a Syrian developer who contributed so several open source project, I call this action unnecessary and outrageous. Sorry, I can’t understand this decision which was taken silently and cowardly by sf.net . I understand that the US law prohibits US companies from exporting their products to the “axis of evil” countries. But what I don’t understand is how sf.net considers the projects they're hosting as US products? It doesn’t make any sense. SF.net DID NOT create these projects. It just HOSTS them. Most of these projects are got contributions from people around the world including people from these countries. Suddenly they can’t access their own work, because sf.net considers them American products! That’s stupid!
Furthermore, it’s a direct violation of the freedoms of Free Software and section 5 of opensource definition:

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups”
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

I hope sf.net reconsider their decision. And at least to stand positively to defend the basic principles of FLOSS.

Sorry, I forgot to mention Googlecode. Maybe because googlecode was less surprising to me, as google already prohibits all their products from being downloaded in those countries. As Bruce said, feel free to edit it, you're the editor! :-) (Also I'd appreciate it if you add the missing "in" after "residing" if it's not too much to ask! :) ) Thanks, --neo

What you've said was very valuable. I only disagree with issue of OSD violation. I believe that banning certain persons based on their location IS a discrimination, and therefore is a violation to Section 5 wihch also says:

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

So I can only see the ban as a direct violation of section 5. The OSD only says that the "license" may "warn" and "remind" licensees of application restrictions in the law, not forbid them from contributing and downloading. And, AFAIK, GPL license, and presumably all other FLOSS licenses, doesn't have this kind of warning anyway.

Furthermore, the US law forbids US products from being exported to those countries. How does FS.net consider all the projects they host US products? Thousands of developers from these countries have contributed to these projects, (such as Bashir and myself), and they do have the right to continue to contribute and use free/open source software.

To prove the correctness of ClearView, we ran it against itself, and found no bugs, no vulnerabilities,.... nothing at all!