> The sanctions regimes
> were enacted by multiple countries' legal governmnts, and now the
> question is how can we best protect the Linux development comunity,
> the operators of web and git servers that are redistributing Linux
> kernel sources. etc.
I guess the best way to protect the Linux development community is bow your head to US government and start licking Biden's boots?
----
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241024193729.GP3204734@mit.edu/
So, from what I heard other Linux community members say about this is that- the foundation of the kernel distribution and development is hosted in the US and is thus governed by US law.
In order for it to be free of US law, the project and it's leads would have to be geographically independent or distributed.
Although the community is global, the core(eg. Torvalds, Greg Hartman, LinuxFoundation,RedHat,Canonical,etc) is still US-based.
@lucifargundam Well, today I'm a little bit in the debate mood, mixed with some idealism. So I'm sorry if my opinions annoyed you :)
Generally speaking, I think Linux kernel is an international project, and is advertised like that several times in the past. In this case, if the government law doesn't align with the project's principle, then IMO it should move to another country. Just like the RISC-V International Association.
But in practice, I think both Linux Foundation and Linus Torvalds don't bother with such things. Especially Linus Torvalds, judged on his past behaviour.
@skyblond
>> Well, today I'm a little bit in the debate mood, mixed with some idealism. So I'm sorry if my opinions annoyed you :)
<< Not at all, I wasn't annoyed. I was only trying to elaborate on the situation.
>>Generally speaking, I think Linux kernel is an international project, and is advertised like that several times in the past. In this case, if the government law doesn't align with the project's principle, then IMO it should move to another country. Just like the RISC-V International Association.
<< I agree, however it seems like certain groups and individuals have made it a lot more difficult to do that in this case. That is regrettable.
>> But in practice, I think both Linux Foundation and Linus Torvalds don't bother with such things. Especially Linus Torvalds, judged on his past behaviour.
<< Although neither party are particularly political, their operating environments(both working in the US) currently impose this- and the cost to quickly relocate in reaction to this is not something either part would like to consider. Both have roots too deep into US soil to quickly relocate. That would take a lot of time and effort.
@lucifargundam I think the sponsors are another important thing to consider. Most of the sponsors, and the major contributors are US-based. So I won't be surprised if in the future the Linux kernel has some privacy and security issues based on the current situation. With that said, I still believe in FOSS and I think the worst thing is Linux kernel start rejecting patches from certain regions and people start forking and maintaining their own state-sponsored kernel.