Open source depends, for its very existance, on a free, open Internet, in which commerce is frictionless, with no barrier to entry, no cost for distribution, and very low marketing costs. (Picture from UC Berkeley.)
Over the last few months a number of stakeholders have tried to forcefully control the resource. The question for users and the industries which depend upon them is, what are you gonna do about it?
The most important threat comes from infrastructure owners -- mainly the phone and cable duopoly. It started with the throttling of BitTorrent, a service many open source projects depend on for distribution, to protect their video monopolies.
None of this would be possible if consumers had choices in the market, but over the last decade the U.S. government has helped create, and then endorsed this duopoly.
Why? It's easier to control a resource with a small number of stakeholders than one with many. Getting IP traffic shunted to it took the government just a few phone calls. If the market were more diffused it would have been impossible.
There is a second risk to government control of the resource, which is that it can be militarized. Evidently that happened during the recent Russia-Georgia conflict.
Which brings us back to Novosibirsk. Sure, the company can set up servers outside its home country. But if stakeholders or government control the resource, they control the economy which depends upon it.
That's why the issues of Internet control should deeply concern those in the open source world, and why we need to get far more deeply involved in Internet governance issues than we are.
It's our roads they're blocking.