Russians can still contribute, they just can't be direct maintainers.
Nothing will likely change in the short term.
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
24 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
1258 readers
108 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They can be maintainers if they can document that they are volunteers and do not work for any state sponsored entity. I don't know haw easy that will be in practice.
https://news.itsfoss.com/russian-linux-maintainers-geopolitics/
Didn't know that, but makes sense.
if you are from Russia, it is impossible to convince the US that you are not a part of a state-sponsored entity
This quote from your article does nail the problem on the head though.
This quote from your article does nail the problem on the head though.
It nails a different problem on the head.
You don't have to convince the US government to allow you access to classified information, you just have to convince a lawyer that their (possibly non-US) client won't be liable in case you are lying.
The problem isn't even where the software is officially based, it can become a problem for individual contributors too.
PGP for example used to be problematic because US exports control on encryption used to forbid exporting systems capable of strong encryption because the US wanted to be able to break it when it's used by others. Sending the tarball of the PGP software by an american to the soviets at the time would have been considered treason against the US, let alone letting them contribute to it. Heck, sharing 3D printable gun models with a foreign country can probably be considered supplying weapons like they're real guns. So even if Linux was based in a more neutral country not subject to US sanctions, the sanctions would make it illegal to use or contribute to it anyway.
As much as we'd love to believe in the FOSS utopia that transcends nationality, the reality is we all live in real countries with laws that restrict what we can do. Ultimately the Linux maintainers had to do what's best for the majority of the community, which mostly lives in NATO countries honoring the sanctions against Russia and China.
good response, but the last part feels a little circular reasoning
linux contributors live mostly in nato countries, so we have no choice but to push people from non-aligned countries away, which will prevent people from non-nato countries from joining, which will make most contributors be from nato countries
as someone said, people who were removed from the list can still contribute, i think, but this might lead to a situation where technology sovereignty will mean using your own regional linux fork
I think it is a circular problem.
Another example that comes to mind: the sanctions on Huawei and whether Google would be considered to be supplying software because Android is open-source. At the very least any contributions from Huawei is unlikely to be accepted into AOSP. The EU is also becoming problematic with their whole software origin and quality certifications they're trying to impose.
This leads to exactly what you said: national forks. In Huawei's case that's HarmonyOS.
I think we need to get back to being anonymous online, as if you're anonymous nobody knows where you're from and your contributions should be based solely on its merit. The legal framework just isn't set up for an environment like the Internet that severely blurs the lines between borders and no clear "this company is supplying this company in the enemy country".
Governments can't control it, and they really hate it.
It's also the fact that the measures taken are very reminiscent of that one phrase about locks: they keep the honest people away.
I have serious doubts that an hacker group, government-sponsored or not, would be using corporate, easily-traceable emails, like the removed maintainers did.
Seeing governments tackle tech in general is very weird. Sometimes I wonder if they feel the same way when making this kind of decisions or actually never feel a little odd about them.
we have no choice but to push people from non-aligned countries away
Non-aligned countries are fine, they can always invade most of the countries once again, the issue is with the Eastern block.
what's the issue?
The sanctions apply to the BSDs too. The only difference with sanctions that I could imagine would be if one of the BSDs had (through happenstance or other factors) a lower starting proportion of Russian developers relative to Linux. If that were the case, then the impact of sanctions on that BSD would be proportionally smaller.
You're asking the wrong question. The question is, "why not test drive a BSD installation, regardless?"
i did test ghostbsd earlier today, actually. i liked it, it felt pretty solid. also, from reading the docs, freebsd gave me the impression of being a very solid system as well
but again, the permissive licensing puts me off, and i don't see what it offers over e.g. debian that makes up for it
i don't see what it offers over e.g. debian
Open clan has better techno-mages
i don't get it
Check out unixsurrealism
🌳 Now don't be hasty, Master Meriadoc. I would wait a bit and see how things play out. It could resolve itself in some workable-enough way, or some org may do a hard fork. We don’t really know what’s going to happen.
It depends on the people and the legal stuff behind everything related to BSD. I don't think there's any history of them dealing with stuff like this (at least not that I'm familiar with) and also there are too many variables to consider. It's impossible to make a meaningful guess here imo.
EDIT: btw early congrats on the month's most controversial post. I guess you're even beating me with this one.
lmao, it was just an honest question. people are too sensitive
Welcome to Lemmy, mister/miss!
If it turns out to actually be a problem, people can just fork Linux itself.
At this point it looks like the problem has to be absolutely horrendous for people to think of a fork seriously. It doesn't look bad for geopolitical actors at all ngl.
That is the true beauty of FOSS technology. Even if it fractures into regional forks, Linux code is open and free (as in freedom), so each fork can just copy-paste and compile the changes made in others if they advance the tech forward, no direct cooperation is actually needed (if everyone keeps publishing its works).