Timeline for Linux and sanctions
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27 at 15:12 | comment | added | Ángel | @Peter-ReinstateMonica thanks! It turns out there were two links to James Bottomley emails saying pretty much the same thing, and I was stuck in the other thread. A nice read, indeed. | |
| Oct 27 at 13:54 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @Ángel lore.kernel.org/lkml/… | |
| Oct 27 at 13:26 | comment | added | Ángel | @Peter-ReinstateMonica Where's that Serge letter? The first post in that thread seem to be GKH patch. And the next one is from Geert. I see no post by a Serge matching this (there are some mails by Sergey Shtylyov, with a couple of email addresses, but I wouldn't consider them a "good-bye letter"). | |
| Oct 26 at 8:20 | vote | accept | Peter - Reinstate Monica | ||
| Oct 25 at 23:59 | comment | added | Kevin | @Peter-ReinstateMonica: The publication of legal advice is very likely to waive at least some attorney-client privilege that might otherwise have attached (because the said privilege is usually limited to confidential communications with one's lawyer). As you might imagine, lawyers are rather cagey about making that sort of waiver, because it can expose their clients to legal liability. | |
| Oct 25 at 15:45 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | Obviously, James Bottomley's explanation in his post to the mailing list from 24 Oct 2024 11:39:11 -0400 shouls have come with the patch and not as an afterthought. "We finally got clearance to publish the actual advice":.. why does that remind me of StackExchange's communications!? We should not let f*cking lawyers intimidate us but stay transparent. Lawyers are inherently paranoid and their ways are kafkaesque. Stay sane, and don't let them brainwash you. | |
| Oct 25 at 15:37 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | I really like Serge's good-bye letter (the first post in the thread James Bottomley answered to in the first link). The journey of a probably fairly typical Linux enthusiast and contributor, learning by doing, with all the ups and downs and different personalities one encounters over the years, who all share a goal: To keep this unlikely blob of code afloat. And eventually, out of all these small and big achievements, sometimes in strides, sometimes in coughs and fits: A miraculous and epic result. | |
| Oct 25 at 14:39 | history | edited | MadHatter♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 25 at 14:26 | history | edited | Sanctified Brethren | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix typo. JSC means Joint Stock Company, and there's no acronym games like UTC involved.
|
| Oct 25 at 13:32 | comment | added | Sanctified Brethren |
@Brandin Unclear. Nobody has, to my knowledge, published any credible legal analysis of sanctions on free software collaboration beyond the terse one-sentence advice quoted at the top from LF attorneys. The US Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, which plainly precludes US law from retroactively punishing past collaboration (similarly for European state signatories to ECHR and many other states). Future patches from @baikalelectronics.ru addresses are almost certain to be rejected. Contributors in Russia are likely required to furnish documentation to LF about their employers.
|
|
| Oct 25 at 9:05 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | Bottomley says above that, for affected persons, "our ability to collaborate with you will be subject to restrictions, and you cannot be in the MAINTAINERS file". So the only definitive requirement is the MAINTAINERS one, which has been done. As I read that, patches henceforth might well be affected, but we don't yet know. Generally speaking, everyone tries to avoid passing retroactive laws, it being generally held that it's wrong to punish people for actions that weren't against the law when they were committed, so I'd be very surprised if existing code had to be removed. | |
| Oct 25 at 8:41 | comment | added | Brandin | Does this mean that they won't be able to commit in the future (while the sanctions are in place)? Does it mean that certain extablished code would have to be removed from the Kernel? | |
| Oct 25 at 8:35 | history | edited | MadHatter♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
The bold doesn't help readability, and I don't see any need to emphasise that datum. Also fixed spelling.
|
| S Oct 24 at 23:49 | review | First answers | |||
| Oct 25 at 6:56 | |||||
| S Oct 24 at 23:49 | history | answered | Sanctified Brethren | CC BY-SA 4.0 |