What is the purpose?

Posted Oct 23, 2024 17:55 UTC (Wed) by mfuzzey (subscriber, #57966)
Parent article: Several Russian developers lose kernel maintainership status

What purpose is this change supposed to have?

Is it that these maintainers are considered untrustworthy due to their affiliation?
If so, and assuming no wrong doing has already been observed, wouldn't an extra layer of review for these drivers suffice?

Or is it that rather that supporting the hardware of Russian manufacturers reduces the effect of sanctions?
That's sort of understanable but how does just removing the maintainers while keeping the drivers help?
And what would happen if someone based elsewhere, not working for Russian company steps up to be maintainer for these drivers - would that be just as bad?

The original commit messages says "They can come back in the future if sufficient documentation is provided" - what documentation would that be?

What is the purpose?

Posted Oct 23, 2024 18:28 UTC (Wed) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

You're asking why politicians do political things. There is no useful answer. There may be useful workarounds.

What is the purpose?

Posted Oct 23, 2024 18:34 UTC (Wed) by atnot (subscriber, #124910) [Link] (3 responses)

The purpose of this is to avoid claims that linux maintainers knew, or should have known, that they were working with sanctioned entities and thus avoid the fines and prison sentences associated with doing that. Presumably the reason it happened now was that a lawyer at LF got cold feet or a friendly inquiring letter from the US government. It's arguable whether what they are doing would actually be considered sanctions evasion in a court, but I do not blame them for not wanting to find out.

The relevant documentation would be, as others have said, evidence that the relevant people are not employed by a listed entity.

What is the purpose?

Posted Oct 25, 2024 8:18 UTC (Fri) by jorgegv (subscriber, #60484) [Link] (2 responses)

"The relevant documentation would be, as others have said, evidence that the relevant people are not employed by a listed entity."

...which of course cannot be be provided. You cannot prove that something physical does _not_ exist. Only that something exists. The Russell tea pot tale comes into mind...

What is the purpose?

Posted Oct 25, 2024 11:00 UTC (Fri) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

You can very easily prove that you work for _somebody else_ that is not on the sanctions list. Also I have no idea how it works in Russia, but in the UK I can prove via my tax documents, provided by the government, that shows who I work for.

What is the purpose?

Posted Oct 25, 2024 12:09 UTC (Fri) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link]

"Proof" and "evidence" are two separate concepts. In particular, remember that for lawyers, "evidence" is often given in court or as part of a deposition: "nah, mate, I was never near the place 'e was killed".

Much of the business of a court is deciding which evidence to accept.

Somebody submitting something like a sworn statement or affidavit stating that they are not employed by a particular company would be considered evidence that they are not employed by that company. Further evidence of their financial affairs (for example, who does employ them) would make that evidence stronger.