OpenBLAS Deciding Whether To Drop Support For Russia's Elbrus CPUs

[L_A_G]

Ah, I see. In either case, the invariant is that you're the victim. Got it.

Victim? The difference was between assuming if you're arguing in bad or good faith. Maybe this is some kind of Freudian slip on your part because no sane person considers themselves a "victim" of someone they're arguing with on the internet.

Perhaps you're not aware, but there are laws against "aiding and abetting" criminals, which don't stipulate that the crime wouldn't have been possible without such support. In times of war, it's also typically disallowed to provide "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Again, it's not as if such support is essential to their offenses. These stand as testament to the fact that lots of small acts and contributions of assistance can sum to something meaningful.

The charge of "aiding and abetting" is for things like hiding suspects, destroying evidence, misleading the police and otherwise actively hindering authorities in a criminal matter. In this case we're talking about not putting in an active effort to punitively punish an ISA for it's relation to the country that developed it. That's wholly different from refusing go out of your way to do something that isn't even more than a symbolic gesture.

To again use an analogy; This is like a sandwich shop owner refusing service to the relative of a criminal.

The longer a fork remains separate, the more it tends to diverge from its parent. Beyond a certain point, it can become impractical to keep it in sync with the parent. I don't know that this is the case for OpenBLAS, but you can't be assured that it's not. And if they don't keep in sync with its parent, they forego fixes, features, and enhancements that are likely of some value.

That may be true if it's a badly structured project, but something as big and long running as OpenBLAS is going to be structured with highly stable internal APIs so that big changes at different parts of the project don't negatively affect other parts of the project. If they make changes that cause the dropped ELBRUS code to become incompatible it'll also cause support for every other ISA to need to be made. With active developers those changes are going to be made anyway and the only difference is they'll be made in their own branch rather than mainline.

I'll say right now: if there's some Russian project or developer with no government or military affiliation or objective, I would absolutely oppose them being discriminated in any way. I know lots of Russians and I know they don't all support Putin or his war. The last thing we want is to make them feel any more ostracized. More importantly, when something isn't about politics or policy, I don't want to politicize it and create needless division.

That's kind of my point... ELBRUS may have been created by Russia in an effort to achieve some form of technological independence and it's used in plenty of perfectly benign applications. Particularly a with compute library meant for scientific applications and limited military uses it's very much kicking the dog simply because you don't like it's owner. You're free to kick all the dogs you like, but I'm still going to question the wisdom in that. We are after all talking about the equivalent of sanctioning a scientific journal.

I wouldn't do anything in support of "Truth Social", his social disinformation platform, no.

Well that's a pretty lame misdirection when I talked about what he, or someone as crazy as him, could do once back in the oval office. That is going to be a government action and precedent set here will be very relevant when it comes to how open source will respond if/when he has the U.S government do something like ban gay marriage federally or drop a nuclear bomb on Brussels.

Outside the of the legal definition, it's merely an argument. It's an argument that rational people can make rational arguments against. Such as by pointing out how that precedent doesn't apply, because the the project in question isn't supporting an expansionist country, waging a hot war of choice against its neighbors.

You're again missing that this is about starting a process that may eventually snowball into something genuinely destructive. Atheism didn't immediately tear itself apart nor did Weimar Germany slide into the holocaust overnight. This is about trying to nip something at the bud when it's still just an inconsequential gesture.

I think you still don't really understand what legal precedent means, or how it's used. It merely governs the interpretation of law. Innocence and guilt are still based on evidence of breaching said law, as precedent would have it interpreted.

Precedent may not determine if an act has happened, but it is very relevant to if that act constitutes a crime and how that crime is them to be punished. Further, outside of legal settings precedent also informs who is to be punished as well. So it's not just as dangerous as in a formal legal settings, it can be even more dangerous.

Ad hoc doesn't mean it's run by idiots. Some projects are, but they're likely to get run off the rails for one reason or another. You're acting as if we're all automatons, who are utterly incapable of rational and principled decision-making.

Quite the contrary, it's because precedent does affect people who aren't idiots. To work from experience, i.e precedent, is how perfectly rational people operate. It may not be what they rely on completely, but it absolutely informs their decision making to a high degree. Only idiots throw work on an entirely inconsistent case-by-case basis.

I get that you worry about cancel culture, but what you're not considering is the reporting bias. Every time something fits the narrative of cancel culture, it gets loudly trumpeted and echos around the internet. This creates a disproportionate picture of the world, in the same way people think there's a lot more violent crime than there really is. That's because such incidents get publicity precisely because they're exceptional and alarming.

You'd be right if it was just a few storms in a teacup here and there, but it's not possible to dismiss anymore with how many times and the extent to which the cases involving Stallman have gone. I could also talk about how badly out of proportion Linus' mailing list rants have been blown and the attempts to harm his career over them. Brendan Eich similarly got persona-non-grata'd even thou nobody had an ill word to say about him professionally.

Not sure where you got that idea. Outside of the occasional heated argument, I really try not to hurl abuse at anyone.

Well where did you get the idea that I think Putin should be left to do as he pleased? If you're going to misinterpret/misrepresent someone else, don't be surprised if they return the favor.

It seems as if your world is one of simplistic and artificial distinctions. Either something is crucial to a war or it's irrelevant and a mere "symbolic gesture". Either we can't refuse anything or we embrace "cancel culture". Either I can't deny support to belligerent, authoritarian regime or I'm a paranoid anti-communist.

You're painting the world in simplistic and extreme terms. I guess, if you can't see nuance and distinctions, then why would you imagine anyone else can?

Now you're just projecting. You're the one who's basically advocating for total war like you're Joseph Goebbels while I'm questioning the wisdom of the equivalent to sanctioning a scientific journal when it could set a precedent that can snowball into something genuinely destructive. To make a difference where you can make one. Not collect ego points while disregarding any unintended consequences and for what? To inconvenience some academic research institutions.

[leipero]

tuxd3v I just finished reading some "western" articles, and one amazing one for Daily Mail, claiming that "Buca massacre" was done by 64th motorized brigade, and directly ordered by leader of it Omurbekov, who got a "blessing" of the Orthodox Church. Now, if there were no real people dead this would be funny, a muslim commander gets a blessing of the christian church, that was the first one, and even more ridiculous is that they (writers of the article) seem to live in, idk, 19th century?
TYT(urds) on YT are even "funnier", I wonder, how people, with intellectual capabilities of toilet cleaners (and I am sorry for insulting toilet cleaners by comparing them to those people) can finish universities and get such a "high role". Don't get me wrong, I actually believe that people with limited intellectual capabilities who work hard physical jobs are the MOST important on this planet, and that it is a crime for them to be ab(used) by low paychecks etc., in comparison to some other jobs, but you get my point.
It's scary stuff when such people of questionable intelligence and/or ethics are in place of influencing other people, the level of hate they are spreading is insane.

Anyway, here's some "Russian propaganda":

https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/bucha_timeline_botsman_06-yt:7?r=3Ld4N4NxQJNHhSf6ruFYGpDuZFDnNwyN

and quite logical explanation:

https://odysee.com/@LandDestroyer:8/why-ukraine%27s-bucha-massacre-story-isn%27t:0?r=3Ld4N4NxQJNHhSf6ruFYGpDuZFDnNwyN

The interesting part is, those articles claim "Russia censorship", but they are not saying that all of that censorship is an direct result of censorship done by "west", for example, odysee links are there because YT banned anyone who is saying something outside of established propaganda, I ofc. stopped using all google services, even before all of this, since google started "a war against fake news" when searching some events first 2-3 pages are flooded with sources that I know for a fact are at the very least questionable, they ofc. at the time rejected all accusations of them manipulating search results, but now, they are directly claiming they are doing so, even removing some websites (even official) from their search results.
I urge people to not use google services at all (yt, gmail etc.), they have proven they are tools of the US attempt to keep it's hegemony if there was any doubt before in someones mind. That is the only way to take away power they have. I'm pretty much done, the only part that was left is Android phone that I need to de-google, or change, for example, Huawei uses it's own services (since, surprise - surprise, it's banned by the US, and removed from google support), so that would be a good option, US people don't know for the most part, but Huawei phones are actually as good or superior to those "established brands".

[coder]

What is there to explain? Either you don't seem to understand my point or are deliberately misunderstanding it.

Ah, I see. In either case, the invariant is that you're the victim. Got it.

Oh so saying that something that doesn't actually achieve anything substantial is a symbolic gesture is an "accusation pulled completely out of my ass". Here I thought this was just stating the obvious.

You seem to think a lone man in a dark alley is utterly defenseless, if he's not holding a gun.

Perhaps you're not aware, but there are laws against "aiding and abetting" criminals, which don't stipulate that the crime wouldn't have been possible without such support. In times of war, it's also typically disallowed to provide "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Again, it's not as if such support is essential to their offenses. These stand as testament to the fact that lots of small acts and contributions of assistance can sum to something meaningful.

The patches were not submitted as "a symbolic gesture", they were submitted for practical reasons. Hence, refusing to merge them is of practical significance, even if it's not absolutely crucial to the success of the use of OpenBLAS on the CPU.

Even if this wasn't the case, as long as you don't need to keep on the cutting edge, we're talking a few days a month for a single developer per big project.

The longer a fork remains separate, the more it tends to diverge from its parent. Beyond a certain point, it can become impractical to keep it in sync with the parent. I don't know that this is the case for OpenBLAS, but you can't be assured that it's not. And if they don't keep in sync with its parent, they forego fixes, features, and enhancements that are likely of some value.

this sets a precedent that if someone does or says something very unpopular, then you kick any technology, people or projects associated with that someone.

No, this isn't merely a Russian CPU. This is a CPU originated and primarily used for military and government purposes. Hence, supporting it provides support for operations conducted by that military and government.

I'll say right now: if there's some Russian project or developer with no government or military affiliation or objective, I would absolutely oppose them being discriminated in any way. I know lots of Russians and I know they don't all support Putin or his war. The last thing we want is to make them feel any more ostracized. More importantly, when something isn't about politics or policy, I don't want to politicize it and create needless division.

Say Trump or someone as crazy as him wins the 2024 election does something terrible.

I wouldn't do anything in support of "Truth Social", his social disinformation platform, no. He abused his authority in an attempt to subvert the democratic transfer of power. That crosses a red line from being merely someone with whom I have political disagreement to someone posing an existential threat to the Constitutional order of the US. And helping him in future political or media endeavors runs the likely risk of further imperiling our democracy.

outside of the legal world "How stuff like this has been dealt with before" (i.e precedent) is still the biggest influence on how something is deal with.

Outside the of the legal definition, it's merely an argument. It's an argument that rational people can make rational arguments against. Such as by pointing out how that precedent doesn't apply, because the the project in question isn't supporting an expansionist country, waging a hot war of choice against its neighbors.

You're obviously not going to be blind to the specifics of the case, but neither is the legal world.

I think you still don't really understand what legal precedent means, or how it's used. It merely governs the interpretation of law. Innocence and guilt are still based on evidence of breaching said law, as precedent would have it interpreted.

the rest of the world is more ad-hoc.

Ad hoc doesn't mean it's run by idiots. Some projects are, but they're likely to get run off the rails for one reason or another. You're acting as if we're all automatons, who are utterly incapable of rational and principled decision-making.

Well I wouldn't be worried if it wasn't for very real examples of what's happened to people like Stallman.

I get that you worry about cancel culture, but what you're not considering is the reporting bias. Every time something fits the narrative of cancel culture, it gets loudly trumpeted and echos around the internet. This creates a disproportionate picture of the world, in the same way people think there's a lot more violent crime than there really is. That's because such incidents get publicity precisely because they're exceptional and alarming.

That settles it. You are trying to conjure up a straw man and aren't trying to argue in good faith.

I addressed these points above, so I'll leave it at that. If you want an excuse disregard my posts, I'm sure you'll find one, whatever I say.

maybe your world view is so narrow that you think not wanting to hurl abuse at ordinary Russians is siding with Putin.

Not sure where you got that idea. Outside of the occasional heated argument, I really try not to hurl abuse at anyone.

Maybe you'd love it if you could go back in time and join senator McCarthy's red witch hunt, going after people as traitors and Soviet spies for merely holding left leaning views while employed by the U.S state department. Or maybe president Bush's "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" attack on people who opposed the invasion of Iraq is your idea of a cause to follow.

It seems as if your world is one of simplistic and artificial distinctions. Either something is crucial to a war or it's irrelevant and a mere "symbolic gesture". Either we can't refuse anything or we embrace "cancel culture". Either I can't deny support to belligerent, authoritarian regime or I'm a paranoid anti-communist.

You're painting the world in simplistic and extreme terms. I guess, if you can't see nuance and distinctions, then why would you imagine anyone else can?

[leipero]

tuxd3v
I didn't follow on that woman, good to know. I know about biolabs etc. Ofc. Russians are telling the truth, those people who supported Nazis are evil or dumb, as I said before, I don't even need to know much of the situation to begin with, since I saw in person that propaganda machine ("western media") at work and as soon as they declare someone as bad, chances are 99% that it is a decent person/whatever in question.

I find it funny/ironic that Nazis are keeping US flag as their "idol", if I was American, I would feel both disgusted and angry to why actual Nazis are using flag of my country and idolize my country. The answer is clear ofc., they are supported for years by the USA, hence, they see it as "idol". Video in question:

https://odysee.com/@RT:fd/fsb_04:3?r=3Ld4N4NxQJNHhSf6ruFYGpDuZFDnNwyN

I know who is the "bad guys" here, it's Nazis from Ukraine (and other countries), EU "leaders" and Nazis in white house following good old British traditions..., there was never doubt about that. They wanted to re-create Srebrenica and Racak fake news in Ukraine even.

[tuxd3v]

Well, as I said before (not sure if I said it here), the idea of the "EU" is the idea of one person well known in world history, the first name of that person is Adolf..., he actually admired the "order" made in the US by then, racist order, the way Native Americans were treated and other "races". I'm also convinced that Goebbels would be envious of the propaganda in the "western media", I've recently got a bit more interested in the topic of that type of propaganda and why it actually works.

Well does you know that the US gave cloths to the American Native Tribes full of smallpox, just to exterminate them?
Almost wiped all of them.. and the brutal thing.. The American Native Tribes didn't even knew why they were dying..crazy..

In the meantime I discovered one interview of a Woman on that maternity in Mariupol Ukraine, now Donbass..
Marianna Vyshemirskaya
She gave birth the next day after that situation...the baby is well!!

The Journalists that are "side by side" with the nazis are the Associated Press( they are acting like White Helmets in Syria...do you remember?? ).
They were the ones portraying the attack as a fighter jet aircraft that attacked the hospital.

The woman simply said that no aircraft attacked the hospital, but 2 shells exploded outside, she can't confirm who launched them, but by the timings, she directs the speech to maybe be the nazi Azov battalion.
After the explosion the Associated Press started filming everything, she asked them to not film her, they said ok, but later filmed her...that video was like crazy around the world..
The pregnant woman's were transferred to another hospital, who do you think was there the next day?right the Associated Press guys AGAIN..they tried to get from her a confection that it was a aircraft attack, but she refused.
And who appears next?Right the nazis from Azov battalion, and they stole the food for the pregnant woman's...

I was almost sure that no air attack happened that day in the Hospital/Maternity, from several places that I was searching..and today I got it!!
ho, and by the way,
She told that Azov battalion installed themselves in the hospital( which seems to be also right from some other sources that I read, it just confirms it! ),
The Russians said the truth, in this case, but were vilified worldwide..

Ukraine was planning a Biological Attack on Russia Federation.
An email "fished" dated from December 15, 2021, were Ukrainian company Motor Sich ask to the Turkish manufacturer of Bayraktar unmanned aerial vehicles( UAV drones ) says:

“Here’s the essence of it: Would it be possible to equip the UAV with systems and mechanisms for spraying aerosols that have the capacity of more than 20 liters,”
“Given that the UAV has the range of up to 300 km and is loaded with biological solutions, there’s a real threat that biological weapons could be used on the territory of the Russian Federation”.

So they proposed to Bayraktar drones if it was possible to install such a system!

Now...do you realize why Russia was crazy after Nuclear Power Plants, and the BioLabs in Ukraine?

TL;DR: You can't really defeat that propaganda with logic and reason, you must use more sophisticated methods, or brute force to fight it.

Propaganda doesn't work with me, I check always the claims they do, and I go around and see also the other side of the story..
So they have no luck with me!

[L_A_G]

Please explain.

What is there to explain? Either you don't seem to understand my point or are deliberately misunderstanding it.

Is it? A maintainer received a patch and was asked to merge it. Refusing to do so was not based on "claiming to be doing something". You just pulled that accusation completely out of your ass.

Oh so saying that something that doesn't actually achieve anything substantial is a symbolic gesture is an "accusation pulled completely out of my ass". Here I thought this was just stating the obvious.

At issue, here, is material support. It needn't be at the level of make-or-break to be relevant. If it's just one fork they have to maintain, it's probably not a big deal. However, if you multiply that across more projects, then it surely adds up. There are practical reasons people like to get their patches upstreamed, you know?

Its not even going to add up when those forks are going to be maintained by the exact same people who already maintain support for ELBRUS who'll just stop working on mainline and work on these forks instead. Even if this wasn't the case, as long as you don't need to keep on the cutting edge, we're talking a few days a month for a single developer per big project.

Or not, because a hot war is not a precedent I hope will be an ongoing issue.

Now this is where you either misunderstand the point or are just straw manning; The point is that this sets a precedent that if someone does or says something very unpopular, then you kick any technology, people or projects associated with that someone. Say Trump or someone as crazy as him wins the 2024 election does something terrible. Do you now kick projects developed by a US government agency or funded by it? Because the precedent set by ELBRUS being kicked off everything dictates doing just that.

After you've done some genuinely big stuff like kicking NIST projects out of the kernel you've created precedent that in another situation like this doesn't just amount of shooting yourself in the foot, it's more like pulling the pin out of hand grenade and sticking it down the front of your pants.

Are we talking about the same thing, here? I'm pretty sure your brain is still awash in dark fantasies of "cancel culture".

I'd hardly call a spiral out of control as precedent dictates action, creating more precedent, dictating more action in a loop a "fantasy".

Legal precedent is a real thing, and entirely different than what we're talking about. You're conflating two different uses of the same term. In the case of "cancel culture", you're taking precedent to mean the establishment of a trend or convention, which is purely informal.

It may not be formal, but outside of the legal world "How stuff like this has been dealt with before" (i.e precedent) is still the biggest influence on how something is deal with. You're obviously not going to be blind to the specifics of the case, but neither is the legal world. The only substantial difference is that the legal world has a clearly defined process for this while the rest of the world is more ad-hoc.

You seem to view all slopes as slippery. Perhaps you inhabit a world of too few principles, if you're simply unable to imagine reasons why a particular slide might be inhibited.

Well I wouldn't be worried if it wasn't for very real examples of what's happened to people like Stallman. They've been howling for his blood for ages, often based on stances he's long since stopped holding and downright malicious mischaracterizations of things he's said. Considering the less-than-on-the-level and/or less-than-rational nature of the attempts to force him into retirement and tarnish is legacy, I do fear people can easily get the ball rolling and rolling fast.

Worse, I sense a disturbing lack of morality in your worldview. For me, this is as much a moral issue as anything else. I would personally reserve the right to withhold any form of assistance for such a deeply unworthy endeavor as Putin's military expansionism.

That settles it. You are trying to conjure up a straw man and aren't trying to argue in good faith.

Because I explicitly said in last post to focus on measures that limit Putin's ability to arm himself, fund and run his government. To do some real damage and make a real difference. Not symbolic gestures that merely inconvenience some ordinary Russians who may not even support him.

Figuratively I'm talking about breaking into Putin's house and doing some real damage by smashing the toilets and kitchen sink to flood the place, break the windows and radiators to get the water to freeze and do some real damage. Not re-arrange the shoe rack so the shoes are in there backwards.

But hey, maybe your world view is so narrow that you think not wanting to hurl abuse at ordinary Russians is siding with Putin. Maybe you'd love it if you could go back in time and join senator McCarthy's red witch hunt, going after people as traitors and Soviet spies for merely holding left leaning views while employed by the U.S state department. Or maybe president Bush's "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" attack on people who opposed the invasion of Iraq is your idea of a cause to follow.

[coder]

This is either a straw man, assuming it's deliberate, or totally misunderstanding the point (assuming it's not).

Please explain.

All this does is inconvenience them them by forcing them to maintain a fork of OpenBLAS just so you can claim to be doing something.

Is it? A maintainer received a patch and was asked to merge it. Refusing to do so was not based on "claiming to be doing something". You just pulled that accusation completely out of your ass.

At issue, here, is material support. It needn't be at the level of make-or-break to be relevant. If it's just one fork they have to maintain, it's probably not a big deal. However, if you multiply that across more projects, then it surely adds up. There are practical reasons people like to get their patches upstreamed, you know?

First something relatively minor happens, it sets a precedent, something bigger happens because of the precedent, it sets another precedent.

Or not, because a hot war is not a precedent I hope will be an ongoing issue.

More things happen, more precedents are set or enforced and eventually it snowballs until things really begin to unravel.

Are we talking about the same thing, here? I'm pretty sure your brain is still awash in dark fantasies of "cancel culture".

The thing about case-by-case assessments is that they're never entirely case-by-case. Like with legal cases, that are supposed to be case-by-case by nature, precedent is the number 1 thing that informs how they're handled.

Legal precedent is a real thing, and entirely different than what we're talking about. You're conflating two different uses of the same term. In the case of "cancel culture", you're taking precedent to mean the establishment of a trend or convention, which is purely informal.

In the legal domain, there's a specific principle of relying on past interpretations of a law to guide its future application. And while each court case weighs the particular evidence to determine if the law was broken, the definition of what it means to break the law in question is a matter of precedent.

Because of that, setting bad precedent with something of questionable value is simply a bad idea.

You seem to view all slopes as slippery. Perhaps you inhabit a world of too few principles, if you're simply unable to imagine reasons why a particular slide might be inhibited.

Worse, I sense a disturbing lack of morality in your worldview. For me, this is as much a moral issue as anything else. I would personally reserve the right to withhold any form of assistance for such a deeply unworthy endeavor as Putin's military expansionism.

[L_A_G]

If you can't see that, then you're so blinded by your culture wars that you forget there are real wars causing tremendous upheaval in the lives and livelihoods of the millions lucky enough to still have them.

This is either a straw man, assuming it's deliberate, or totally misunderstanding the point (assuming it's not). All this does is inconvenience them them by forcing them to maintain a fork of OpenBLAS just so you can claim to be doing something. What you really want to focus on are substantial things like banning exports of components and materials with real military applications, banning/tariffing substantial imports that would bolster Putin's warchest, making exports in general difficult trough things like kicking them off the SWIFT system and sanctioning the oligarchs who serve and make Putin's rule possible.

In other words; It's about focusing on substantial things. Not some small inconsequential things just so you can merely claim to be helping and buff your own ego.

At this point, you're just catastrophizing. Not everything is a precedent or a domino.

Well I hope so, but the reality is that descents into anarchy in both web communities like open source and "meatspace" societies like countries is always a process. It doesn't happen overnight. First something relatively minor happens, it sets a precedent, something bigger happens because of the precedent, it sets another precedent. More things happen, more precedents are set or enforced and eventually it snowballs until things really begin to unravel.

We can afford to take these matters on a case-by-case basis. If a troubling trend indeed emerges, that's when it's time to have this discussion. Furthermore, at that time, we would have more specifics that could be useful in the formation of general principles.

The thing about case-by-case assessments is that they're never entirely case-by-case. Like with legal cases, that are supposed to be case-by-case by nature, precedent is the number 1 thing that informs how they're handled. Because of that, setting bad precedent with something of questionable value is simply a bad idea.

[coder]

Also, you completely missed the point. It's about creating a precedent of action based on association.

It's not, though. The CPU was developed for use by the government and military of a country seeking to expand its territory by means of extreme, deadly force. Whatever excuses they may give as their rationale, it fits a clear pattern of behavior with their actions in 2008, 2014, and now. Taking these patches means providing material support to such a government.

If you can't see that, then you're so blinded by your culture wars that you forget there are real wars causing tremendous upheaval in the lives and livelihoods of the millions lucky enough to still have them.

Its just the first target of inconveniencing that'll be Russian, after that it'd be off to the races until eventually

There are lots of punishments in the world that are reserved for specific crimes. Just because they could be applied more broadly doesn't mean they are. That's not to say I see this as a punishment, but I just use that as an analogy. To make your "slippery slope" argument stick, you really need more data.

I think people didn't suddenly forget the open source ethos, nor the virtues of open collaboration and cooperation. There's good reason to think this isn't a slippery slope. However, since tech underpins much economic and military power, there's no denying it's political. So, no matter what happens in this specific instance, it's still likely that we will see some fragmentation along political and linguistic lines. I'm thinking more about China, but there are obviously other fault lines.

some real damage gets made when based on precedent spawned by this pushes major projects to disassociate from these core pieces of open source without any real alternative.

At this point, you're just catastrophizing. Not everything is a precedent or a domino.

We can afford to take these matters on a case-by-case basis. If a troubling trend indeed emerges, that's when it's time to have this discussion. Furthermore, at that time, we would have more specifics that could be useful in the formation of general principles.

[L_A_G]

L_O_L. No, this has nothing to do with your Cancel Culture wet dream, but I'm sure that's exactly in line with how Russian propagandists want to cast this: as mere "russophobia" cancel culture.

Considering Stallman still receives crap for bad ideas he's had decades ago and is still intimately linked with everything developed by the FSF (GCC, glibc, etc.) it's legitimately the sort of business risks open source would legally have to write on their earnings reports if they were a publicly traded company.

Also, you completely missed the point. It's about creating a precedent of action based on association. Its just the first target of inconveniencing that'll be Russian, after that it'd be off to the races until eventually some real damage gets made when based on precedent spawned by this pushes major projects to disassociate from these core pieces of open source without any real alternative.