Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>I'm also not going to start discussing legal issues with random internet people who I seriously suspect are paid actors and/or have been riled up by them.

Oh boy, everyone who disagrees with me works for the Kremlin.




There are in reality a lot of people who work for the Kremlin or have been riled up by them. I'm not sure he's that paranoid to suspect that.


Labeling shows lacks of argument.


I mean, it's likely not just deflection/paranoia in his case.


It certanly looks like. This is, unfortunately, not the Linus i knew from lkml.

Anyway, it is a good alarm signal about open source (especially after npm and xz).

In the end we are all amunition. /s


> It certanly looks like.

With what's been going on in the world and with Russia, it really doesn't. That's the thing.


[flagged]


He covers this in TFA:

> And FYI for the actual innocent bystanders who aren't troll farm accounts - the "various compliance requirements" are not just a US thing.


It'd be nice to list what those "various compliance requirements" are on a public open source project.


Not open source specific, but:

> Treasury, in consultation with the Department of State, has issued a new determination under Executive Order (E.O.) 14071, which prohibits the supply to any person in the Russian Federation of (1) IT consultancy and design services; and (2) IT support services and cloud-based services for enterprise management software and design and manufacturing software. The determination will take effect on September 12, 2024.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2404#:~:text....


At least part of that might very well be illegal.


Then it sounds like public open source projects are now illegal in the US. We should act accordingly.


Alternatively we can continue like normal because not much of value will be lost. Git is inherently decentralized. If A requires work by C they can pull it directly or B can pull from C and A from B.

There is no inherent issue with C's contributions coming in by way of B especially if B vetted and examined said contributions personally.


Please see the legal reason in the sibling comment.


How did you extrapolate 'everyone' from my sentence saying 'for his'?


Because you're replying to my post where I said everyone?


Not a great answer since I was saying your claim specifically didn't apply to him, i.e. one person. Look at the logic of this conversation, a paraphrased version of the actual one we had:

---

Submission: Jack the firefighter says x

You: All people who say x must be crazy or being paid

Me: In this case Jack's claims likely have merit

You: So anyone that says x is paid? Where's my check?

---

You see how that doesn't track, right?


Submission: Everyone who disagrees with me is a Russian shill.

Me: It's stupid to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian shill.

You: Spends five posts aggressively misunderstanding what I've said.


Sigh. I didn't misunderstand anything, I specifically said in this particular instance his claims might be valid, in contrast to your outright dismissal of them.

What a frustrating and pointless discussion because you were so set on misunderstanding something so simple. No wonder your comments are getting flagged.

Good luck to you.


Being riled up doesn't mean being paid, there are millions mired in their disinformation and manipulation operations


> and/or have been riled up by them.

Maybe don't blatantly misrepresent what he wrote, even if you still disagree with it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: