251–260 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the GPL
The GNU General Public Law ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "some Russian-sounding names are banned, but we still have to demonstrate there is a due process". That's not true! There are still many Russian maintainers in the kernel, but they are not based in Russia. They only banned individuals, based in Russia, who are employed by sanctioned companies.
As a neighboring comment mentioned, at least one banned individual seems to be based in the US is employed by Amazon, as per their LinkedIn, including some old posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41933300 They just happened to still use their older .ru email in the MAINTAINERS file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source means put up or shut up. If you don’t like the institutions, then build it yourself. You can’t cry foul when the group is literally providing you with free software. Open source institutions don’t own anyone anything beyond open software.
>the group is literally providing you with free software It's not their software. Linux kernel is written by thousands of people from all around the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
History is full of violent revolutions against autocratic governments. We should inflict maximum pain on the Russian populace. Be as cruel as possible. Keep the pressure on. Eventually it might pay off. And even if it doesn't work, it serves as an object lesson to other countries on the consequences of opposing US policies.
So, what you want is essentially pushing a whole country's population around for your own amusement? Very motivating, not gonna lie!
Russian government is cancer but this is pointless. It would be much easier to hide a backdoor in an npm or python package.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if that's the case, why don't they?
Lawyers. https://lore.kernel.org/all/7ee74c1b5b589619a13c6318c9fbd0d6...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a random free gmail account and a fake name does not give you the ability to commit to the linux kernel, so no.
It allows you to get code into the kernel by way of sending patches. Eventually you may earn enough trust to get into some kind of power position. Surely you remember the liblzma/xz story.
The email thread continues. Linus later responded with: >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. Which I find pretty concerning statements, quite a disservice to the community. It's a…
Open source means put up or shut up. If you don’t like the institutions, then build it yourself. You can’t cry foul when the group is literally providing you with free software. Open source institutions don’t own anyone anything beyond open software.
Probably the best thing that can happen to the kernel... this type of measure generally backfires spectacularly by giving talent the opportunity to thrive, if anything as a way to fight back against injustice and arbitrary decisions, or for sanctioned opposition to invest in resilience by dumping more money in things otherwise not consider a priority. I always thought Argentine music from the 80's and early 90s was l…