personally i don't agree with sanctioning foss communities.
but fuckit, bring on more forks i say.
among other benefits, the scifi-type scenario of nations trying to patch eachothers backdoors and slip in new backdoors (and hopefully innovations). could make for an exciting OS space-race type scenario
personally i don't agree with sanctioning foss communities.
Foss communities aren't being sanctioned. Whole countries are. It's the same limitation whatever enterprise you're in.
If Olympians have to renounce their country to take part in global competition, why do you not think a software developer wouldn't have to do the same to be involved in a global project?
Do you think it's acceptable to make olympicians first bow to the west before they can take part in games?
Should Isn'traelis first denounce the genocide before being able to contribute to the linux kernel or take part in olympic games?
Not the west. The global community.
...and should Israel be under sanctions? Absolutely.
Lol global community
It will do what the US says or else it gets the hose again
this is a complex topic and probably belongs in a different thread.
essentially i don't personally believe in punishing citizens of a country for the actions of its politicians.
at best its misguided, at worse it basically empowers politicians on both sides who draw power from friction between citizens of different nations. typical divide and conquer bs.
why do you not think a software developer wouldn’t have to
wouldn't or shouldn't? if you mean wouldn't, it's not surprising and its not the dev's fault they have to comply with policy, so the criticism is not with them.
if you mean shouldn't, i don't agree with punishing athletes either, but regarding foss specifically, isn't the "friendly competition" of olympics equivalent to that? sort of. in some ways yes. in other ways its actually the opposite.
collaboration is actually the opposite of competition.
and while there's a case for the benefits of healthy sports competition, i don't believe it truly fulfills the spirit of international goodwill to the degree it says on the packaging. foss and other forms of international collaboration for the betterment of greater society are definitely on a higher rung - in my opinion at least.
Please don't...
Can we organize and force the Linux Foundation and/or OFAC to exclude open source software from these sanctions? Is anyone doing that yet?
What would be the point of the sanctions then? If the Linux Foundation were against it they could move the infrastructure to an other jurisdiction which does not sanctize countries, that would carry a strong message. But if they refuse to do that, what's wrong with others' forking it and doing it? That's the point of opensource.
Americans should vote for Trump, he's the best chance to overturn these ludicrous sanctions.
Trump isn't going to act against the interests of American Empire dumbass
Thanks for name-calling, real classy.
At least Trump is probably gonna normalize relations with Russia. On the other hand, he's probably gonna support Israel even more fervently, whereas Harris would do the opposite - escalate the bickering with Russia and colden the relations with Israel. You can't have it all.
colden the relations with Israel
nah the dumbass was well-deserved
I thought this was a forum for Linux discussion, not promotion of fascists
For those who don't know about Escobar's axiom: https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/escobars-axiom-of-choice-1
Even this top level comment is so blatantly misunderstanding the concept of open source software that no one will bother engaging with it properly.
It was expected. This is how "free" development becomes a victim of not at all free dogmas. It is also how already fragmented Linux development becomes even more fragmented.
It doesn’t. Russians are still free to use and contribute to Linux development. Just a few people lost their maintainer rights.
Right? It’s weird how so many people upset about the situation in this thread are incapable of explaining why it’s a problem without lying.
Like, I get that it sucks to be removed as a maintainer because of something outside your control. But being, or continuing to be, a maintainer of a project isn’t a right that’s integral to that project being free.
I am doubtful about the agency of the commenters here. Does not seem natural, more like a group of bots / paid russian trolls.
What “not at all free dogmas” are you referencing, and why is “free” in scare quotes?
What's free about delisting maintainers based on their country of residence?
You do know that the maintainers delisted worked for russian companies that was sanctioned by the west? And if you feel somehow wronged by this, you are always more than welcome to emigrate to a country that aligns with your worldview.
First, you’re acting like the decision was made by Linus or another member of the team and that they weren’t following the law.
Second, even if that weren’t the case, it’s still completely free. Unless you can name one of the following freedoms that was impacted by those actions:
- Freedom 0: The freedom to use the program for any purpose.
- Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
- Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
- Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
All of those freedoms were directly impacted bozo.
And as for "Linus didn't do it", not only did they choose to comply with an order that directly violated the GPL, but in doing so he then followed up by gloating about Russian maintainers who have worked diligently on the kernel for years for the betterment of open software AND Linus' paycheck.
Calling your former volunteer contributors bots and state assets because of their home country is just straight up racist, especially when the only evidence of state-sponsored tampering in the Kernel has come from American institutions (that we even know of).
Literally none of those freedoms were impacted. Everyone is still free to use the program as they wish, fork it, make changes, etc.. Linux doesn’t have a new license that says “anyone but Russians” can use it.
he then followed up by gloating about Russian maintainers
How did he gloat? He explained the change. If your complaint is that he was abrasive, I feel like you’re not familiar with Linus.
Ok, lots of Russian trolls out and about. It's entirely clear why the change was done, it's not getting reverted, and using multiple random anonymous accounts to try to "grass root" it by Russian troll factories isn't going to change anything. And FYI for the actual innocent bystanders who aren't troll farm accounts - the "various compliance requirements" are not just a US thing. If you haven't heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read the news some day. And by "news", I don't mean Russian state-sponsored spam. As to sending me a revert patch - please use whatever mush you call brains. I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be *supporting* Russian aggression? Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of history knowledge too.Sounds a lot more like he’s frustrated than delighted to me.
Calling your former volunteer contributors bots
He didn’t call the contributors bots.
He called the people submitting reverts and complaining about those maintainers, who weren’t contributors themselves, “troll farm accounts.”
and state assets because of their home country
When did he call anyone a state asset? To be clear, being a troll or a paid actor doesn’t make you someone’s property.
He also explained that this was a legal matter:
> Again -- are you under any sort of NDA not to even refer to a list of > these countries? No, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to go into the details that I - and other maintainers - were told by lawyers. I'm also not going to start discussing legal issues with random internet people who I seriously suspect are paid actors and/or have been riled up by them.To be clear, being a troll or a paid actor doesn’t make you someone’s property.
Ok, I give up, I have no idea if you're doing a bit. Like I felt kinda confident you were serious, but this leaves me floundering. Purposely obtuse because you've talked yourself into such a stupid corner, or just that incredibly obtuse that you unironically think asset means property? Absolutely no way to tell which one it is.
Before I reply to your comment, I’d like to share this link. It didn’t change any of my existing understanding because Linus’s comment already made it clear that this was out of their hands, but maybe it’ll help clarify something for you.
I realize now that this comment on that post was made before this one (“What's free about delisting maintainers based on their country of residence?”) by the same person. It’s disingenuous for someone to act like this is about “country of residence” when they already engaged with a post clarifying that it’s because of sanctions against specific companies.
that you unironically think asset means property
I unironically think that because it does mean that:
- assets plural
a. the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies
b. the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts
a. an item of value owned
b. assets plural the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned
When I do a search for “state asset,” the results I get are all related to property, resources, etc., things that belong to and can be exploited by the state - for example https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/state-asset-management-initiatives-documents
Searching for “asset” specifically I see a tertiary definition reading “A spy working in his or her own country and controlled by the enemy” as well as the wikipedia definition, but that still means “spy,” not “paid lobbyist.”
just that incredibly obtuse
I’d apologize for not being well versed enough in counter-intelligence lingo to properly interpret the comment, but even with a proper interpretation, the comment I replied to was still incoherent, so I’m not really sure what you expect here.
It feels weird to say that it was incredibly obtuse of me to not spend more time trying to figure out what someone meant when they were, as far as I can tell just mad that Linus and other Linux maintainers didn’t ignore what their attorneys advised, regardless of what impact that might have had on them personally, and spouting a bunch of nonsense as a result.
Maybe I’m wrong, though. If so, would you care to explain how this was a violation of the GPL and/or how all of the 4 freedoms I listed were violated?
- assets plural
a. the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies
b. the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts
a. an item of value owned
b. assets plural the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned
Hey now, something strange is going on here - see, when I visit that page, there aren't just 3 items. Now, you wouldn't be selectively ignoring parts of your own source to paint a certain narrative, would you? Because the 4th item I see is
4 : something useful in an effort to foil or defeat an enemy: such as
a : a piece of military equipmentb : spy
I'm sure you simply... overlooked it in your excitement. Now you're aware though, I'm sure you'll be happy to correct your comments.
why would i fucking care about the rest of what you have to say, liar? You're not here arguing in good faith, why would I bother?
- I was showing that my understanding of the word “asset” was based in fact. The 4th definition wasn’t relevant to that.
- I literally talked about the 4th definition in the next paragraph.
If anyone’s operating in bad faith, it’s you. Are you drunk? You’re being an intentionally obtuse pedant and a liar (by your own definition). Try replying once you’ve sobered up, clown. Once you reread and realize how much of a dick you were, I’m sure you’ll apologize - unless I’m right about you being too much of a coward to admit when you’re wrong about something.
First of all, saying "based on their country of residence" is either grossly uninformed or (most probably) plain dishonest.
Ignoring that, the GPL-freedoms of companies subject to sanctions are still preserved, so.... having established that your "free" is not the same "free" as in "free and open source software", what the hell are you talking about?
Check out the post history, this person is a Richard Stallman defender
Probably better for BRICS countries to consider contributing to something different.
Realistically there's no feasible way for the US to block access to use the kernel, and even a soft fork of it will be laughably easy for removeds to exploit. There are a bunch of promising kernels that could be well suited for China and Russia's push towards RISC and ARM independence, whereas in Linux they'd be tasked with maintaining drivers and other systems that are a massive security vulnerability if you don't have total control over them.
I'd honestly even consider it a good idea for Russia to get the FSF to fight this considering it's a blatant violation of the GPL. Even if the president can just say whatever they like, at least you can make it embarrassing and expensive for the chauvinists gloating at the labour they exploited for years.
I'd honestly even consider it a good idea for Russia to get the FSF to fight this considering it's a blatant violation of the GPL.
How is telling someone that you won’t accept their contributions anymore a violation of the GPL?
The fork has no hope of survival. Are you telling me Russia's Ministry of Digital Development can maintain a project of this size? lol, rofl even.
They can pull patches from mainstream Linux if they can't keep up themselves. The project is big but not too big.
Disregarding the parent comment, but hosting a soft fork is easy enough but it'll quickly become a spaghetti mess of local patches that conflict with upstream changes. It's not like there's an argument for preserving access to Russia either since the nature of the kernel being hosted across torrent trackers makes it impossible to deny Linux to any one country.
It seems like the better solution (imo) is to work on a different kernel receptive of these maintainers, so that the companies employing them can still have a kernel that is developed for their use-cases whilst supporting projects that don't so openly collaborate with hostile states.
whilst supporting projects that don't so openly collaborate with hostile states.
Geopolitical propaganda spotted. Reporting...
Why wouldn't they be able to. Russia has a lot of tech talent, and tends to top programming competitions. Also, if this happened I imagine other countries like China would collaborate as well. China alone has a bigger population than all of the west, and a better education system to boot.
its quality will not be lower than usa linux, as they will pull latest development but not push back (to the linux list)
