I think the prestige of "maintainers" and contributions/control are what is being torn down. Anyone anywhere is still welcome to contribute, they are simply limited from direct control. They can still fork at any time, anyone can. Getting people to follow your fork is another thing entirely, and your open source code will still likely be incorporated directly or indirectly. The only thing that has changed is the misguided prestige that has grown around the project and is not a required or relevant part of the project as a whole.
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
77 points (73.6% liked)
Asklemmy
49576 readers
553 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm out of the loop, what's the recent Linux drama? If you don't wanna type it out, you can point me in the right direction. Thanks. :)
Torvalds kicked out a bunch of Russia-based kernel maintainers.
For additional context, this was not a choice, but a requirement. The Linux Foundation is US based, and Torvalds is a US citizen. This was required due to current US sanctions against Russia, and was not just some sort of "Russia bad" thing from Torvalds that a lot of people are framing it as.
and was not just some sort of "Russia bad" thing from Torvalds
The way he announced it and responded to the critics very much made it seem like that. He legitimately needs to shut the fuck up and get a PR person to talk in his stead.
this was not a choice, but a requirement
It has been framed as such, but no evidence has been given that it was a requirement
There was more drama? I didn't even notice. They're always doing drama.
Yes. I always thought of sanctions as being finance-related, meaning you can't transact with sanctioned groups. I figured it couldn't apply to decision-making/membership in non-profit organizations (that it might somehow violate "free speech" or some shit). Finding out this is not the case is terrifying and one more reason to hate the US (not that we needed more). This might disincentivize some people to contribute to FOSS.
Unfortunately no.
I remember the selinux controversy and the nsa trying to slip bad algorithms in.
I just wanted to say that I have the same questions, and it's a relief to see it posted by someone with more courage. I'm too ignorant to contribute to the discussion though. I don't know how a government or private entity could pressure a FOSS project in this way, unless that pressure was put on the project's git platform. At which point the repo just moves elsewhere.
load more comments
(1 replies)
From what I understand this wasn't a decision dictated by sanctions nor was there any strongarming. Otherwise it would've happend way earlier.
I also think splitting politics and literally anything else doesn't work and is something people who benefit from the discussion (or lack therof) made up.
Nothing is devoid of global politics.
@Artemis_Mystique@lemmy.ml Views on the idea, no. But it confirmed my opinion that the current socio-economic system is unfriendly to FLOSS
No