this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
252 points (89.6% liked)

Linux

47887 readers
1086 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

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Official statement regarding recent Greg' commit 6e90b675cf942e from Serge Semin

Hello Linux-kernel community,

I am sure you have already heard the news caused by the recent Greg' commit 6e90b675cf942e ("MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements."). As you may have noticed the change concerned some of the Ru-related developers removal from the list of the official kernel maintainers, including me.

The community members rightly noted that the quite short commit log contained very vague terms with no explicit change justification. No matter how hard I tried to get more details about the reason, alas the senior maintainer I was discussing the matter with haven't given an explanation to what compliance requirements that was. I won't cite the exact emails text since it was a private messaging, but the key words are "sanctions", "sorry", "nothing I can do", "talk to your (company) lawyer"... I can't say for all the guys affected by the change, but my work for the community has been purely volunteer for more than a year now (and less than half of it had been payable before that). For that reason I have no any (company) lawyer to talk to, and honestly after the way the patch has been merged in I don't really want to now. Silently, behind everyone's back, bypassing the standard patch-review process, with no affected developers/subsystem notified - it's indeed the worse way to do what has been done. No gratitude, no credits to the developers for all these years of the devoted work for the community. No matter the reason of the situation but haven't we deserved more than that? Adding to the GREDITS file at least, no?..

I can't believe the kernel senior maintainers didn't consider that the patch wouldn't go unnoticed, and the situation might get out of control with unpredictable results for the community, if not straight away then in the middle or long term perspective. I am sure there have been plenty ways to solve the problem less harmfully, but they decided to take the easiest path. Alas what's done is done. A bifurcation point slightly initiated a year ago has just been fully implemented. The reason of the situation is obviously in the political ground which in this case surely shatters a basement the community has been built on in the first place. If so then God knows what might be next (who else might be sanctioned...), but the implemented move clearly sends a bad signal to the Linux community new comers, to the already working volunteers and hobbyists like me.

Thus even if it was still possible for me to send patches or perform some reviews, after what has been done my motivation to do that as a volunteer has simply vanished. (I might be doing a commercial upstreaming in future though). But before saying goodbye I'd like to express my gratitude to all the community members I have been lucky to work with during all these years.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Matty_r@programming.dev 51 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Honestly must be incredibly stressful managing a project like the Linux kernel. Governments constantly wanting changes made for their own purposes, companies leeching off the work of volunteers, neck beards losing their minds over some change they don't like.

I don't envy them at all. This sort of change was inevitability going to piss people off - it could have been handled better but I think it was going to be lose/lose no matter which way it was done.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 8 points 2 days ago

neck beards losing their minds over some change they don't like.

Ughhh, it was so infuriating hearing that guy rant about how Rust was bad and was trying to take over at that conference. I felt so bad for the speaker.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 3 days ago (8 children)

I personally think this is a cop out. Obviously people would have been outraged either way, but personally my only issue is about how it was done. The whole point of the FOSS community is openness and transparency. The senior maintainers of arguably the most important FOSS project trying to operate secretively on something like this has shattered my trust in them, as well as many others.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

My main concern with this happening is how much secret control the US government has over top Linux maintainers. Many commenters say that Linus couldn't refuse the request from the government because he lives in the US and Linux Foundation is in the US. So what other requests from the government known to put backdoors into software they couldn't refuse in the past or won't be able to refuse in the future?

Yes, this is exactly my same thoughts.

This is terrifying.

I don't like what the Russian government is doing and Putin is cruel and evil, albeit intelligent (which makes him even more terrible).

That being said, in the US, government agencies can order a company to do certain things, put in certain code, or whatever and then issue a gag order as part of that preventing disclosure. And although there's a limit to how much that can screw over open-source software users, we do not know what exploits nation-states have, we don't know what backdoors are in different chipsets or closed-source firmware.

If a developer writing open source code can be blacklisted so easily without transparency into the process, it suggests the company is being ordered to do certain things and not disclose them by the US government, which is a government that still engages in torture.

Notice how they are not coming out and saying "We were not ordered to do this by any government agency."

Could the foundation be forced to elevate a developer with government ties who then is able to "accidentally" put in an extremely hard to detect exploit into linux that won't be detected at first and only patched later?

I really wish companies associated with linux were not in a country that lacked transparency with government regulations and in which gag orders were not possible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 0x4E4F@infosec.pub 11 points 2 days ago (4 children)

The senior maintainers of arguably the most important FOSS project trying to operate secretively on something like this has shattered my trust in them, as well as many others.

Basically, my stand on this.

And that it was dismissed like it was "no big deal" by Linus and some of the other senior maintainers.

But seriously, Linus's comment regarding this was... just... I have no words... he basically put every Russian in the same basket, called them trolls and added a racist comment on top of that, I mean... yeah, I lost all respect for him. At least his previous fits were about code and only if someone fucked up something, this is completely different.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] JustMarkov@lemmy.ml 51 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's ridiculous how some see nothing wrong with delisting maintainers and are genuinely happy about such discrimination.

[–] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Not ridiculous. Majority of U.S propaganda is based on dehumanising people.

Also I read somewhere that this ban only applies to folk that work in companies that are sanctioned. So might not be straight up racism.

But I do agree with you. Who tf is U.S to sanction others while it's formed on a genocide and still committing another one.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kbal@fedia.io 173 points 4 days ago (30 children)

Later in that thread:

Please accept all of our apologies for the way this was handled. A summary of the legal advice the kernel is operating under is

If your company is on the U.S. OFAC SDN lists, subject to an OFAC sanctions program, or owned/controlled by a company on the list, our ability to collaborate with you will be subject to restrictions, and you cannot be in the MAINTAINERS file.

Anyone who wishes to can query the list here: https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 132 points 4 days ago (36 children)

Which is exactly what anyone who wasn't wanting to just snort some concentrated outrage knew was the case.

And you can argue as to if OFAC list should apply to things like this or not, but the problem is that the enforcement options for OFAC violations include 'stomp you into the ground until you're powder', most people are just going to comply.

load more comments (36 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago
[–] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Wait linux community is removing maintainters because of their nationality???!!

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not about nationality. Here are the facts:

  1. LF is USA based (headquarters in California), as such they're subject to USA law
  2. USA imposed sanctions on companies that are directly involved in supplying Russia with weapons.
  3. To have business, including receiving help, from those companies would open LF to legal repercussions in the country where they're based.
  4. Baikal Electronic JSC is on the sanctioned list.
  5. Serge Sermin public GitHub profile listed Baikal as their employer

Therefore to not remove Serge from the maintainers would open LF to legal repercussions.

You might not agree with what was done, I certainly don't, but I understand it.

[–] xordos@lonestarlemmy.mooo.com 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] xordos@lonestarlemmy.mooo.com 1 points 5 hours ago

Just feel things are very different now. Much harder to fight/work around with govt. And this leads to my 2nd link that, kinds of conspiracy, that we maybe already have backdoor in open source projects because they are hard to detect as long as there are pre-build tools.

Anyway, lots of feelings after reading this post...

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 22 points 2 days ago

Let’s just say this properly ok so that 70 percent of the commenters here might better understand.

Association with some of the people previously on the kernel maintainers list was putting the Linux kernel at risk. The risk was that European, American, and other users may be prohibited from using it. The risk was that entities such as the Linux Foundation could be held in contempt of sanctions and sanctioned themselves. That could mean financial damage or even a full stop to operations.

If the kernel were sanctioned, every entity, individual or company, could be put at risk.

Association with sanctioned individuals put every other maintainer at risk. Being listed together in the maintainers file put many innocent people in extreme jeopardy.

So, let’s say this properly ok…

Some of the maintainers were removed to defend the Linux kernel and the many, many entities ( individual and corporate ) that use it. They were removed to protect the other maintainers and the people and companies that they associate with.

The Linux Foundation, being American, may have been particularly at risk. But “moving” the kernel does nothing. The contributors and maintainers are still wherever they are. Linux users are equally economically dependent on the US and Europe regardless. The issue are the international sanctions. My country has issued them too ( neither American or European ). And blaming the counties that issued the sanctions, instead of blaming Russia, is a very interesting morale position to take ( not getting into that here ).

My first reaction was to have a problem with how this was done. However, once you acknowledge the association, any interaction, collaboration, or communication becomes even more problematic as you KNOW that you are working with sanctioned individuals. So, doing it simply and succinctly was probably best.

[–] pound_heap@lemm.ee 42 points 3 days ago (12 children)

Not nationality but alleged involvement with sanctioned organizations. There are plenty of Russian names on maintainers list remaining.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 65 points 4 days ago (21 children)

It sucks if well meaning people are caught up in this, but it also sucks if you're living in the aggressor state of an ongoing war.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›