Torvalds backs removing Russian Linux kernel maintainers

Torvalds backs removing Russian Linux kernel maintainers

A change in the latest development version of the Linux kernel removed an unspecified but significant number of developers of Russian origin or employed by Russian companies from the official MAINTAINERS list. Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linus Torvalds' right-hand man, applied the change, justifying it with "compliance requirements" and the need for "sufficient documentation." There was no prior transparent announcement; only a response trinc complaints from those affected. The purge reached maintainers of drivers, protocols, and file systems.

What is the Linux kernel and why does its maintenance matter?

The kernel is the core of the operating system: the layer that communicates with hardware and upon which distributions like Debian, Ubuntu, or Android are built. Its development is coordinated via a public mailing list, LKML, and organized by subsystems with maintainers responsible for reviewing patches. The MAINTAINERS list is the directory of these individuals. Being excluded does not prevent using the software—the GPL license mandates code accessibility—but it prevents being listed as responsible and, in practice, conditions collaboration.

Torvalds' response: "I am Finnish"

Amid the uproar, Torvalds spoke bluntly. He accused critics of being "Russian trolls" using anonymous accounts to simulate a popular movement, and concluded: "It is clear why the change was made; it will not be reverted." He added that "compliance requirements" are not solely a US issue and that anyone unaware of sanctions against Russia should catch up on news, "not Russian state propaganda." Regarding patches to reverse the measure: "I am Finnish. Did you think I would support Russian aggression?"

Asked if his secrecy stemmed from a non-disclosure agreement, he denied it: he is not a lawyer and has no intention of debating legal issues with random people online.

The email explaining the criteria: OFAC's SDN list

James Bottomley, a veteran kernel developer, responded to Serge Semin's farewell message with a more conciliatory tone and greater detail. He summarized the legal advice under which the project operates: if your company is on the US OFAC SDN lists, subject to a sanctions program, or owned/controlled by such a company, collaboration capabilities are restricted, and you cannot appear in MAINTAINERS. In Semin's case, the issue was that his employer was on that list. If there was an error, this is the documentation Kroah-Hartman needs. Bottomley apologized for how it was handled, thanked previous contributions, and offered to arrange a mention in the credits file. His practical rule: "if you are not on the SDN list, there is no problem." Much of Linux infrastructure and many of its maintainers are based in the United States, and its legislation cannot be ignored.

What is lost and what remains after expulsion

Open source is not extraterritorial space. The license guarantees access to the code but not participation in the development process, which is organized from specific jurisdictions and infrastructures. Those affected can still read the mailing list and download the source code, but they lose influence over the project's direction. Some argue the measure is inevitable given the legal framework; others point out that the criterion excludes collaborators based on their employer's location, not their work. A third, deeper line suggests this pushes Russia, China, or India to build their own technological bases.

The fork: a recurring exit strategy in software history

The most common response is branching. A fork involves taking existing code and developing an independent project with different goals or developers. The practical problem: if you do not want to diverge too much from the original, you must reapply your changes in every new version. And the kernel is at version 6.11, while Android 10 used Linux 4.9. Software history is full of pioneers displaced by their successors: Symbian arrived in 1997, Windows CE in 1996, iOS in 2007. The first one does not always win.

The unsettling fact

Geopolitics enters Linux development through the back door, with an email summarizing legal advice and a sanctions list as admission criteria. Meanwhile, the code remains free, the fork is legal, and the question of who maintains the next kernel remains unanswered.