zlacker

[return to "A leadership crisis in the Nix community"]
1. ordina+La[view] [source] 2024-04-29 15:47:09
>>elikog+(OP)
Dolstra nailed it:

> It is my opinion that it is not for us, as open source software developers, to decide whose views are valid and whose are not, and to allow or disallow project or conference participation as a result.

You really should not be in open source if you believe it is your purview to ideologically police the usage and contribution to your software. That notion is incompatible with the spirit of the endeavor.

◧◩
2. giraff+9c[view] [source] 2024-04-29 15:52:18
>>ordina+La
It's very reasonable to not want your work used by arms dealers, and it is in fact your purview to "ideologically police" the uses your work is applied to.

"If you don't want to help create war machines you can't contribute" is your solution, not mine.

Historically the conventions of open source has been that use is completely without restriction, but there has always been conflict about that. The domain is new enough that I wouldn't consider it settled yet.

◧◩◪
3. rgrmrt+Xc[view] [source] 2024-04-29 15:56:05
>>giraff+9c
But the software licensing explicitly allows your work being used by anyone (as long as they adhere to the license). If you don't want your work to be used by entities you disagree with you can not contribute to the project or advocate for use of a different license.
◧◩◪◨
4. cycoma+Yi[view] [source] 2024-04-29 16:18:11
>>rgrmrt+Xc
The software licencing is also completely irrelevant here, nobody said that Anduril can't use Nix. The issue was that the community largely did not want them as sponsors. There is a very big difference to allowing someone (or some company) to use your software and wanting to participate in a conference where the same company is a sponsor.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. rgrmrt+pl[view] [source] 2024-04-29 16:27:20
>>cycoma+Yi
I honestly don't understand what objecting to them as a sponsor does. Sponsorship benefits the project for everyone. Is the objection to both the sponsorship and their presence in the conference? Folks who don't want to engage with them at the conference can simply not engage with them.

Also AFAIK one of the conferences objected to their presence, so they weren't able to have a booth there. Individual participants are in their right to make these decisions and act on them (like that one conference did). What exactly is the outcome people want?

[go to top]