To be fair - anyone contributing to the GPL ought to be aware of the terms of their license. They're not "appropriating" something that was consciously and deliberately licensed by the contributors for these exact terms of ownership.
These people probably did nothing wrong, but sanctions are sanctions and they apply unilaterally. Their best path of recourse is to fork Linux (which is entirely legal) and continue their work on a downstream basis with patches that can be merged into the main branch.
Linux Foundation silently run some "No Russians" campaign. That's not a problem by itself, but they should make a public statement about this.
Huawei's contributions to Linux have always been controversial, and the moment they start war in Taiwan like Russia did in Ukraine you can bet your bottom dollar they're all getting thrown out the window. There will be no legal reparations between the Linux foundation and Russia/China because neither country respects US jurisdiction in the first place. So instead, this is going to continue until the aforementioned nations decide to grow up and stop being hermit kingdoms.
If you seriously believe in the color revolution nonsense then you've fallen for exactly the kind of myopic paranoia that Putin wants you to believe. I don't think the United States is always correct, which is why we exercise a functioning democracy and rely on the ongoing feedback from diplomatic peers and voting citizens.
You can't reap the rewards of global cooperation in one hand while threatening it with the other. Once bitten, twice shy.
Back to LinuxFoundation: the problem is not that they ban somebody. They should make a clear public statement about that, like chess.com did for example.
P.S. And it will be much better for OSS community if LF was based in some neutral country, without "world control" ambitions.
Either Russia is facing resistance or they're tactically choosing to slaughter their own infantry. I'll leave it up to you to figure out, since you sound like such the strategic mastermind.
> And it will be much better for OSS community if LF was based in some neutral country, without "world control" ambitions.
No, it would be better for exploitative actors that don't respect the foundation of copyleft licensing in the first place. The OSS community relies on Open Source licenses to protect them - if your jurisdiction doesn't enforce those licenses, you're encouraging a legal free-for-all.
And since what time OSS is regulated by USA laws?
I agree, and also to add another point, this actually provides some protection to those authors.
If you are a maintainer with credentials that allow you to push code into the kernel/driver then you are at risk for coercion and can be leveraged by hostile entities.
If those credentials has to go through a secondary or tertiary review process (due to the increased risk), its less likely given the limited benefit that leveraging these authors might be useful. The same would obviously be true for China as well.