Perhaps one of the more surprising changes in the 6.12-rc4 development kernel was the removal of several entries from the kernel’s MAINTAINERS file. The patch performing the removal was sent (by Greg Kroah-Hartman) only to the patches@lists.linux.dev mailing list; the change was included in a char-misc drivers pull request with no particular mention.
The explanation for the removal is simply ““various compliance requirements””. Given that the developers involved all appear to be of Russian origin, it is not too hard to imagine what sort of compliance is involved here. There has, however, been no public posting of the policy that required the removal of these entries.
An early comment likely pins down the prevailing institutional pressures leading to this decision
What’s the deal with an international project adhering to what is obviously a decision of the US government?
Hint: The Linux Foundation (which notably employs Greg KH and Torvalds, and provides a lot of the legal and other infrastructure for this “international project”) is based in the US, and therefore has to follow US laws.
This is pretty fucked up. Like, we might see the kernel forked in the coming months/years.
See also: Phoronix: Linus Torvalds Comments On The Russian Linux Maintainers Being Delisted
So, banning maintainers who are russian means what in the long term? What were they contributing before?
It sets a precedent of banning maintainers and other contributors from nations in the Global South and nations declared enemies of NATO. This goes against open source philosophy, and this will lead to China and other nations needing to develop their own sovereign forks or kernels from scratch.
It’s similar to the US working to ban RISC-V to stop China from using an open source instruction set to become more technologically sovereign. Restricting open source software from NATO’s enemies is essentially NATO shooting themselves in the foot in the long term. NATO is sanctioning an enemy, so the enemy is incentivized to build alternatives to tech they lost (which can be forked easily), and then the alternatives become popular and challenge NATO’s tech, which is not competing where over 30% of manufacturing industry exists, which leads to NATO’s tech and industry crumbling as it cannot dominate the market like it was able to before and further accelerates the Empire’s decline.
This is a good comment on this thread that explains the long term consequences more comprehensively than what I did: https://hexbear.net/comment/5541448
Thank you I’ll check that out.