3 ms·

A lot of other maintainers are, in the sense of needing to comply with sanctions so fully that they cannot even be charged with violating them.

ogurechny 2y ago
The main problem, and the reason why these actions exploded, is that people actually believe that they are “owned” by some country, all the time, or just “in these difficult times”. And then they dare to call some other citizens “too obedient”. Note that self-professed “freedom loving” doesn't not mean much. There's always a million of excuses to tell yourself that you're an exception.
- tankenmate 2y ago
  How people feel about the situation is not the same thing as what is legal (as well as the obvious statement that not everyone feels the same way about the adjacent issue of what is happening in the war between Ukraine and Russia). In this situation it is fairly obvious there are legal implications to having these people as maintainers; so the choice becomes "go with the feels" or run headlong into legal complications. The decision made at this juncture says about the decision maker. Turning your back on the rule of law is a big step.
  - oytis 2y ago
    > In this situation it is fairly obvious there are legal implications to having these people as maintainers It's not really obvious to me, and looks like to some other people too. It would really help if gkh explicitly said what law prohibits collaboration with Russia-based maintainers or what specific legal consequences they are avoiding in this manner. The vagueness just creates a sense of uncertainty for every non-Western contributor
    - tankenmate 2y ago
      If you want to make your own fork and put those maintainers back and it's not against the laws of your country then go ahead. Linus is almost certainly not in that position.
  - ogurechny 2y ago
    You seem to think it's a different issue. It is not. There are “legal implications” of disobeying the orders and disagreeing to serve in the military. There are “legal implications” of calling the glorious leader a crooked mobster. There are “legal implications” of having banned books on display in a library. (Not officially banned, but the officials are making scary faces because someone heard that higher ups discussed something, and the librarian rushes to hide the you-know-whom and you-know-what without any specific orders.) There are “legal implications” of discussing this and that, and posting links, when it is officially declared “illegal information”. etc. Comrade Stalin does not force anyone to do that himself. Regular people — you and me — do that. If was possible to handle the case properly without bowing to anyone. If there was an immediate security danger, announce that. If legal team told you to stop working with certain entities, inform the people properly. I suspect that Linux leadership is now between the rock and the hard place because some men in suits only strongly hinted they need to do that, and now, then they acted, they don't have a single piece of paper to prove it was under someone's pressure. A classic trick to manipulate people who believe in “matters of national security”. It is highly likely that most people who vehemently show support, and ignore the obvious “nothing to see here, citizen” details are simply trying to keep the bubble of “living in a democratic country, unlike those shitty places” intact. After all, media and politicians are 100% set on using war spectacle to sell the feeling of (in)security, and blame everything on external and internal enemies. It's the same tool Putin and company used to remain in power.
    - tankenmate 2y ago
      They didn't remove these people from the git logs, merely from the maintainers list. It's not an issue of speech, it's an issue of authority to submit changes to the kernel.
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      > There are “legal implications” of disobeying the orders and disagreeing to serve in the military. Strictly speaking, nothing stops the guy from leaving Baikal - I don't think they are a branch of military per se. But then he won't be paid to contribute to Linux kernel.
oytis 2y ago
Honestly it's the first time I hear about sanctions prohibiting private persons from collaborating on a project. Is there a precedent for that? How were e.g. Iranian or Cuban contributors treated on Linux kernel before?
- SSLy 2y ago
  Seems like the individuals were hit because of their employers. This is the first widely public instance of such things happening. I'd assume non-maintainer developers from Iran or Cuba could have been just ignored.
  - oytis 2y ago
    The way they communicate doesn't really make it clear whether they refuse to work with sanctioned companies, with all residents of the sanctioned countries or with all nationals of the sanctioned countries wherever they reside. For some individuals it can indeed be tracked that their employer may be sanctioned, but IMO community should not be left guessing
    - SSLy 2y ago
      Yeah, I don't disagree with your assessment. It could have been handed both more bluntly and yet with just a little more grace than what we are seeing.
kalloc 2y ago
Maybe it would be fairly to remove patches too? :)

ogurechny 2y ago

The main problem, and the reason why these actions exploded, is that people actually believe that they are “owned” by some country, all the time, or just “in these difficult times”. And then they dare to call some other citizens “too obedient”. Note that self-professed “freedom loving” doesn't not mean much. There's always a million of excuses to tell yourself that you're an exception.

tankenmate 2y ago
How people feel about the situation is not the same thing as what is legal (as well as the obvious statement that not everyone feels the same way about the adjacent issue of what is happening in the war between Ukraine and Russia). In this situation it is fairly obvious there are legal implications to having these people as maintainers; so the choice becomes "go with the feels" or run headlong into legal complications. The decision made at this juncture says about the decision maker. Turning your back on the rule of law is a big step.
- oytis 2y ago
  > In this situation it is fairly obvious there are legal implications to having these people as maintainers It's not really obvious to me, and looks like to some other people too. It would really help if gkh explicitly said what law prohibits collaboration with Russia-based maintainers or what specific legal consequences they are avoiding in this manner. The vagueness just creates a sense of uncertainty for every non-Western contributor
  - tankenmate 2y ago
    If you want to make your own fork and put those maintainers back and it's not against the laws of your country then go ahead. Linus is almost certainly not in that position.
- ogurechny 2y ago
  You seem to think it's a different issue. It is not. There are “legal implications” of disobeying the orders and disagreeing to serve in the military. There are “legal implications” of calling the glorious leader a crooked mobster. There are “legal implications” of having banned books on display in a library. (Not officially banned, but the officials are making scary faces because someone heard that higher ups discussed something, and the librarian rushes to hide the you-know-whom and you-know-what without any specific orders.) There are “legal implications” of discussing this and that, and posting links, when it is officially declared “illegal information”. etc. Comrade Stalin does not force anyone to do that himself. Regular people — you and me — do that. If was possible to handle the case properly without bowing to anyone. If there was an immediate security danger, announce that. If legal team told you to stop working with certain entities, inform the people properly. I suspect that Linux leadership is now between the rock and the hard place because some men in suits only strongly hinted they need to do that, and now, then they acted, they don't have a single piece of paper to prove it was under someone's pressure. A classic trick to manipulate people who believe in “matters of national security”. It is highly likely that most people who vehemently show support, and ignore the obvious “nothing to see here, citizen” details are simply trying to keep the bubble of “living in a democratic country, unlike those shitty places” intact. After all, media and politicians are 100% set on using war spectacle to sell the feeling of (in)security, and blame everything on external and internal enemies. It's the same tool Putin and company used to remain in power.
  - tankenmate 2y ago
    They didn't remove these people from the git logs, merely from the maintainers list. It's not an issue of speech, it's an issue of authority to submit changes to the kernel.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    > There are “legal implications” of disobeying the orders and disagreeing to serve in the military. Strictly speaking, nothing stops the guy from leaving Baikal - I don't think they are a branch of military per se. But then he won't be paid to contribute to Linux kernel.

oytis 2y ago

Honestly it's the first time I hear about sanctions prohibiting private persons from collaborating on a project. Is there a precedent for that? How were e.g. Iranian or Cuban contributors treated on Linux kernel before?

SSLy 2y ago
Seems like the individuals were hit because of their employers. This is the first widely public instance of such things happening. I'd assume non-maintainer developers from Iran or Cuba could have been just ignored.
- oytis 2y ago
  The way they communicate doesn't really make it clear whether they refuse to work with sanctioned companies, with all residents of the sanctioned countries or with all nationals of the sanctioned countries wherever they reside. For some individuals it can indeed be tracked that their employer may be sanctioned, but IMO community should not be left guessing
  - SSLy 2y ago
    Yeah, I don't disagree with your assessment. It could have been handed both more bluntly and yet with just a little more grace than what we are seeing.

kalloc 2y ago

Maybe it would be fairly to remove patches too? :)