Todd C. Miller, one of those lesser-known open-source heroes (and a longtime OpenBSD developer) whose work we rely on every day and who has maintained sudo for more than 30 years, published a public appeal seeking individuals or organizations willing to fund the tool’s continued development and maintenance.
He shared the following on his personal page:
“For the past 30+ years I’ve been the maintainer of sudo. I’m currently in search of a sponsor to fund continued sudo maintenance and development. If you or your organization is interested in sponsoring sudo, please let me know.”
As you know, sudo is a critical component of nearly all Linux distributions and many Unix-like systems, allowing controlled privilege escalation and forming part of the default system security model on servers, desktops, and embedded systems alike.
At the same time, sudo’s role extends far beyond. It is widely deployed across enterprise environments, cloud infrastructure, networking appliances, and embedded devices, making its security and reliability particularly important.
Sudo was originally written in the early 1980s by Bob Coggeshall and Cliff Spencer. Todd C. Miller began maintaining sudo in 1994, taking over stewardship of the project and becoming its primary developer. Since then, he has overseen its security model, feature evolution, portability, and long-term maintenance.
Given how fundamental this project is, I sincerely hope this situation is resolved quickly. Miller stated that interested sponsors can contact him directly to discuss funding arrangements.
In closing, there’s no reason to panic about sudo being left unmaintained. This is not the case. A look at the last changelog shows that Miller continues to actively and carefully maintain the project, with the most recent updates landing just two weeks ago.
One thing people often overlook about Linux is its fragility when it comes to human factors. The real hidden risk is what happens if key developers—those who maintain critical tools or projects: leave the scene, retire, or simply pass away. When that happens, entire ecosystems can suddenly lose momentum, leaving users stuck with outdated or unsupported software.
This is one reason I actually believe commercialization could help keep Linux alive and thriving. A commercial model can provide continuity beyond any single developer or small team. It creates incentives for long-term maintenance, ongoing updates, and professional support: so the “train” keeps moving even when individuals are no longer around.
But commercialization shouldn’t mean fragmentation. In my view, it should be done through a hybrid, “federative” model:
– Centralized, standardized governance for core standards and frameworks
– Clear interoperability rules to ensure different projects can work together
A shared ecosystem that keeps compatibility stable for years
This would allow commercial players to innovate and invest, while still keeping the Linux ecosystem cohesive and reliable. It’s a way to protect the future of Linux without sacrificing the open values that made it successful in the first place.
But looking the way a lot of people within the Linux community behave, that’s not going to happen …
Commercialization is not the and never will be the answer. The answer is to make a system that guarantees core systems / projects pass to predetermined maintainer(s) if the original maintain cannot or won’t continue the work.
We do take these tools for granted don’t we.
Let’s hope he finds a corporate sponsor or maybe ne can get help from the Linux foundation