Linus Torvalds comments on the Russian Linux maintainers being delisted
Several maintainers of the Linux kernel employed by Russian, sanctions-listed organizations have been removed from their roles, prompting a broader debate over how geopolitics and legal compliance should shape open source governance. Commenters weigh the need to follow international sanctions and mitigate security risks against concerns about collective punishment, xenophobia, and the erosion of the “open to all” ideal. Many also question the opacity of the legal rationale and the concentration of power in a single benevolent-dictator-for-life model for a core piece of global infrastructure.
Scope of the Change
- Debate over terminology: some say “delisted maintainer” is routine; others argue it’s effectively “banishment” because direct merges to the kernel tree are no longer possible.
- Old contributions remain; the change affects who is listed as maintainer and who can send pull requests directly.
- Non‑maintainers (including affected Russians) can still contribute via other maintainers or by forking.
Legal and Security Rationale
- Many commenters accept that the trigger is sanctions and “compliance requirements”, particularly for those employed by sanctioned Russian organizations.
- Some see it primarily as risk management: reducing potential for coercion/backdoors by a hostile state.
- Others think legal advice is likely conservative: easier to over‑exclude than risk sanctions violations.
Fairness, Sanctions, and Collective Responsibility
- One side: targeting people associated with sanctioned entities is justified; individuals in such environments can be compelled and thus pose risk.
- Other side: this is collective punishment of programmers for their government’s actions, contrary to open‑source norms.
- Broader argument over whether citizens of aggressor states are morally responsible, or largely powerless under authoritarian regimes.
Tone, Communication, and “Troll” Accusations
- Some criticize the public messaging as needlessly hostile, especially suspicion that online critics are “paid actors” or Kremlin‑riled.
- Others argue that state‑backed trolling is real and that calling it out is reasonable.
- Several say a simple, dry “we must follow sanctions law” explanation would have defused much controversy.
Impact on Open Source Governance and Ideals
- Critics see this as politicizing Linux, betraying the idea that volunteers are not their passports.
- Supporters note Linux is now heavily corporate, already operating under legal and geopolitical constraints.
- The BDFL model itself is questioned: too much power in one person’s hands for infrastructure “that runs everything.”
Historical and Geopolitical Context
- Finnish–Russian history and Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine are repeatedly invoked.
- Some justify strong measures and distrust as natural responses to ongoing aggression.
- Others highlight “whataboutism” around other invasions (US, allies, Israel) and see hypocrisy in how sanctions are selectively applied.
Unclear / Disputed Points
- Exact legal criteria and why specific individuals were removed while others were not remain undisclosed.
- It is asserted but not definitively confirmed that only maintainers linked to sanctioned entities are affected.