Linux Says “Goodbye, Russia"

Summary

On October 18th, a contentious patch was introduced to the Linux kernel, removing maintainers linked to a sanctioned organization, sparking intense debate within the community. The patch's fallout stemmed from U.S. compliance issues, reflecting the challenges of navigating sanctions in open-source collaboration. Prominent figure James Bottomley stressed adherence to U.S. Treasury regulations, suggesting that clearer communication could have prevented much of the backlash. This incident underscores the intricate balance between regulatory compliance and maintaining a cohesive codebase in the global tech landscape.

Takeaways

• 🛠️ A significant patch to the Linux kernel removed 177 lines, sparking controversy and criticism.
• 📅 The patch's timestamp is October 18th at 11:31 a.m. MT, highlighting its relevance in recent discussions.
• ⚠️ The patch involved removing maintainers, many of whom had links to organizations affected by U.S. sanctions.
• 📜 The commit message emphasized compliance with regulations, indicating the broader geopolitical context.
• 🇷🇺 Russian sanctions have impacted contributions to Linux, prompting stricter adherence to compliance requirements.
• 👤 A hero of the story, James Bottomley, emphasized restrictions on collaboration with sanctioned entities.
• 📝 The importance of clear communication regarding compliance was highlighted to avoid future controversies.
• 🔄 Removing patches from multiple contributors could lead to significant complications in the project's history.
• 🔥 The situation reflects ongoing tensions between technology and international relations, especially regarding sanctions.
• 🕰️ Linus Torvalds' impressive speed in creating patches is mentioned, contrasting with the complexities of removing them.

Q & A

What event triggered the controversy in the Linux community?

The controversy was triggered by a patch that removed entries related to maintainers whose affiliations were under US sanctions, specifically linked to the company bCal.

What specific compliance requirements led to the removal of maintainers?

The removal was due to various compliance requirements related to US sanctions against bCal and its parent company, which were designated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

Who is Greg KH and what role did he play in this incident?

Greg KH is the second-in-charge of the Linux kernel development process, and he signed off on the patch that removed the maintainers, citing compliance issues.

What was the community's reaction to the patch's implementation?

The Linux kernel mailing list became heated with discussions and protests regarding the patch, indicating strong emotions and differing opinions among community members.

What actions did James Bottomley take in response to the situation?

James Bottomley intervened by clarifying that contributions from organizations on the OFAC SDN list would be restricted, reinforcing the compliance stance.

How did the sanctions impact the Linux kernel development process?

The sanctions prohibited collaboration with organizations like bCal, which affected the inclusion of patches and maintainers associated with them in the Linux kernel.

What is the significance of the commit message mentioned in the transcript?

The commit message highlighted the compliance issues and signaled the need to remove certain maintainers, marking a crucial decision in adhering to US laws.

What complications arise from removing patches in Git?

In Git, removing patches requires reverting them rather than deleting them outright, which can complicate the project's history and lead to numerous conflicts.

What prior incident foreshadowed the current controversy?

A prior commit was rejected in March 2023, indicating discomfort with accepting contributions from the organization related to the sanctioned hardware.

What broader implications does this incident have for the open-source community?

This incident illustrates how geopolitical issues and sanctions can directly affect open-source projects, leading to difficult decisions about maintainers and contributions.