(this post obviously assumes the recent removal of russian devs due to sanctions is bad; no need to comment if you disagree)

a lot of people i know are considering jumping ship to some bsd after the recent MAINTAINERS debacle, but i’m skeptical it would make any difference. afaik, they’re just as us-centric as linux if not more (it’s the berkeley software distribution, after all). also, my biggest gripe about the bsds and the main reason i’ve never had any interest in them is their permissive licensing. permissive licenses suck

would there be any difference wrt sanctions in the bsds or moving away from linux to *bsd bc of that would be pointless?

  • CameronDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Russians can still contribute, they just can’t be direct maintainers.

    Nothing will likely change in the short term.

      • CameronDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        Didn’t know that, but makes sense.

        if you are from Russia, it is impossible to convince the US that you are not a part of a state-sponsored entity

        This quote from your article does nail the problem on the head though.

        • gomp@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          This quote from your article does nail the problem on the head though.

          It nails a different problem on the head.

          You don’t have to convince the US government to allow you access to classified information, you just have to convince a lawyer that their (possibly non-US) client won’t be liable in case you are lying.

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    The problem isn’t even where the software is officially based, it can become a problem for individual contributors too.

    PGP for example used to be problematic because US exports control on encryption used to forbid exporting systems capable of strong encryption because the US wanted to be able to break it when it’s used by others. Sending the tarball of the PGP software by an american to the soviets at the time would have been considered treason against the US, let alone letting them contribute to it. Heck, sharing 3D printable gun models with a foreign country can probably be considered supplying weapons like they’re real guns. So even if Linux was based in a more neutral country not subject to US sanctions, the sanctions would make it illegal to use or contribute to it anyway.

    As much as we’d love to believe in the FOSS utopia that transcends nationality, the reality is we all live in real countries with laws that restrict what we can do. Ultimately the Linux maintainers had to do what’s best for the majority of the community, which mostly lives in NATO countries honoring the sanctions against Russia and China.

    • beleza pura@lemmy.eco.brOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      good response, but the last part feels a little circular reasoning

      linux contributors live mostly in nato countries, so we have no choice but to push people from non-aligned countries away, which will prevent people from non-nato countries from joining, which will make most contributors be from nato countries

      as someone said, people who were removed from the list can still contribute, i think, but this might lead to a situation where technology sovereignty will mean using your own regional linux fork

      • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think it is a circular problem.

        Another example that comes to mind: the sanctions on Huawei and whether Google would be considered to be supplying software because Android is open-source. At the very least any contributions from Huawei is unlikely to be accepted into AOSP. The EU is also becoming problematic with their whole software origin and quality certifications they’re trying to impose.

        This leads to exactly what you said: national forks. In Huawei’s case that’s HarmonyOS.

        I think we need to get back to being anonymous online, as if you’re anonymous nobody knows where you’re from and your contributions should be based solely on its merit. The legal framework just isn’t set up for an environment like the Internet that severely blurs the lines between borders and no clear “this company is supplying this company in the enemy country”.

        Governments can’t control it, and they really hate it.

        • noobdoomguy8658@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s also the fact that the measures taken are very reminiscent of that one phrase about locks: they keep the honest people away.

          I have serious doubts that an hacker group, government-sponsored or not, would be using corporate, easily-traceable emails, like the removed maintainers did.

          Seeing governments tackle tech in general is very weird. Sometimes I wonder if they feel the same way when making this kind of decisions or actually never feel a little odd about them.

      • Shareni@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        we have no choice but to push people from non-aligned countries away

        Non-aligned countries are fine, they can always invade most of the countries once again, the issue is with the Eastern block.

  • Bob Smith@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    The sanctions apply to the BSDs too. The only difference with sanctions that I could imagine would be if one of the BSDs had (through happenstance or other factors) a lower starting proportion of Russian developers relative to Linux. If that were the case, then the impact of sanctions on that BSD would be proportionally smaller.

  • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    You’re asking the wrong question. The question is, “why not test drive a BSD installation, regardless?”

    • beleza pura@lemmy.eco.brOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      i did test ghostbsd earlier today, actually. i liked it, it felt pretty solid. also, from reading the docs, freebsd gave me the impression of being a very solid system as well

      but again, the permissive licensing puts me off, and i don’t see what it offers over e.g. debian that makes up for it

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    🌳 Now don’t be hasty, Master Meriadoc. I would wait a bit and see how things play out. It could resolve itself in some workable-enough way, or some org may do a hard fork. We don’t really know what’s going to happen.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It depends on the people and the legal stuff behind everything related to BSD. I don’t think there’s any history of them dealing with stuff like this (at least not that I’m familiar with) and also there are too many variables to consider. It’s impossible to make a meaningful guess here imo.

    EDIT: btw early congrats on the month’s most controversial post. I guess you’re even beating me with this one.

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      At this point it looks like the problem has to be absolutely horrendous for people to think of a fork seriously. It doesn’t look bad for geopolitical actors at all ngl.

    • Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That is the true beauty of FOSS technology. Even if it fractures into regional forks, Linux code is open and free (as in freedom), so each fork can just copy-paste and compile the changes made in others if they advance the tech forward, no direct cooperation is actually needed (if everyone keeps publishing its works).

  • tekato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    You can’t escape US Sanctions, no matter what you choose. So it’s whatever.

  • GustavoM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    a lot of people i know

    So…gamers, and maybe a few youtubers with less than 10 subscribers? Nah, we güd.