Finally, here's a more useful answer from James Bottomley:...

Finally, here's a more useful answer from James Bottomley: https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zxpqnf1M8rPTB4DN@black.fi.intel.com/T/#m99bf59e0a5930460de743daaf31192cf1c8b9e96

The situation still looks odd when you consider that:
1. NetUP is not on the SDN list;
2. Neither is MSU;
3. None of the maintainers have personal sanctions against them;
4. While it is possible that they confused public mail.ru addresses with corporate ones, this wouldn't explain why they removed a maintainer with a personal mail server, so it still looks like a blanket ban.

We finally got clearance to publish the actual advice:

If your company is on the U.S. OFAC SDN lists, subject to an OFAC
sanctions program, or owned/controlled by a company on the list, our
ability to collaborate with you will be subject to restrictions, and
you cannot be in the MAINTAINERS file.

> What are "various compliance requirements"?
> What does "sufficient documentation" mean?

The documentation Greg is looking for (which a group of Lawyers at the LF will verify) is that someone in the removed list doesn't actually work for an OFAC SDN sanctioned entity.

> I can guess, but I think it's better to spell out the rules, as Linux
> kernel development is done "in the open". I am also afraid this is
> opening the door for further (ab)use...

I agree we should have been more transparent about this but I think it would be hard for someone other than Greg to get a Maintainer removed on the "compliance issue" grounds so it's probably not that open to abuse.

Regards,

James

Like 1 24 October at 16:12 | Open on lor.sh