> Linus can reject that same driver from being merged to the upstream master copy if he wants. You really missed the point. Yes, anybody can maintain a fork, b

> Linus can reject that same driver from being merged to the upstream master copy if he wants. You really missed the point. Yes, anybody can maintain a fork, but Linus still has to make the judgement on whether to add such a driver to Linux. And making such a call is a big deal, it means he and the kernel developers are committing to maintaining it (to some degree) and makes it easier for North Korea to keep it up to date and functioning. And Linus's tree is the tree people get their Linux Kernel from, just because forks exist does not mean he doesn't need to think about what he adds to his. Linus is a "moral gatekeeper" whether he wants to be one or not, and in some cases he has to answer such questions, the only relevant part is how he chooses to answer them. > Software that is morally gatekept by its creator is not free (as in freedom) software. I value freedom more than I value "preventing harm" or whatever you're worried about. The whole world is trending toward less freedom (of speech, etc.) in the name of "preventing harm" which I think is a big mistake. These are two completely different things. There's a big difference between "I'm not going to prevent you from writing X" and "Here's X, it's only used by you and I wrote it or I'm keeping it up to date for you". That was the whole point of the example questions I gave. At some point it's not just some theoretical boogeyman, at some point you are aiding those who are doing things you don't consider OK. Just because they can fork Linux doesn't mean Linus has no responsibility for what he puts into his fork and develops. > I value freedom more than I value "preventing harm" or whatever you're worried about. And what's your point? Refusing to develop software or maintain software for someone is expressing freedom, I would argue that very thing is what will protect freedom from various nefarious actors. Or do you suggest such people (like Linus) should just blindly develop whatever they're told without any concern for what the results may be? The real irony here is that some of the software I'm talking about is software that is currently restricting the freedom of people across the world. And I can guarantee you that some of the people who go on Hacker News help develop it, and justify it via "It's not my responsibility, it's just code and I get paid to do it" - and that shouldn't be acceptable to them or us. My whole point is that they should have a higher standard and realization of the affect the code they write has on other people, and I think we're actually in agreement on this part.