Even if that was the case, I have no regrets.
This kind of behavior stifles innovation and attempts to limit what people can do.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that hiring someone doesn't mean that you grandfather their liabilities. If that were the case the world would be chaos.
If Sonarr was the reason to reject him then it was done out of complete pettiness.
Let's be honest, if it's a concern they speak up and say shelving this is a condition of employment.
I was about to hire a guy and discussing him with the president, it came up that he was into ASICs for crypto mining (years before it was a big thing)... president didn’t like it, figured the guy to be a get rich quick type and through his direction we passed over hiring him.
Turns out in this case, it was a good call, but right or wrong it was enough to push the guy back in the pool as he was already on the edge anyhow.
I can understand the justifications for culture fit, however, to me it sounds like you passed over someone because he was ambitious outside of work. That's fine if that's your culture, but you should consider that as a red flag.
It doesn't download pirated shows, nor does it play them. It just organizes and renames and creates lists of missing episodes for files that may or may not be pirated content.
And also like I said, it worked out in this case, the guy was a get-rich-quick type. He went to work for someone I know and didn’t last there. Sub par work, rushed and didn’t really care. That’s all besides the point.
The point that yes, your outside interests can possibly effect your hiring prospects.
I've also seen it in the weebs and also brainwashing Japanese Corp culture.
I have a feeling because its m$ their cture dictates that they at least appear they were disgusted with his sonarr authorship.
I'm proud of the work I've done on Sonarr. If someone doesn't want to associate with me because of it, then the feeling is probably mutual.
"Microsoft is paying someone who develops piracy software"
The half assed articles from TechCrunch and such will cause a lot of drama around MS they simply don't want.
What sort of self-absorbed narciccist are you?
I mean, I believe that it's possible you're correct. But this is just such a foreign "does not compute" situation to me. Is the thought process something like "Sonarr is often used to download things against copyright law -> that's a no-no -> we don't do no-no's here"? I'm trying to phrase this as positively as I can, so I apologize if it sounds like I'm belittling the mindset or something. It's not like that.
(It's mildly unfair to Microsoft to imply that this could be the reason, since as a company policy Microsoft can't show up and say "Well actually, the reason we didn't hire was because X" – and this seems like it would be an outstandingly bad decision. Old Microsoft may have made decisions like this, but in recent years they've made some pretty impressive reforms.)
Anything mentioning or using BitTorrent is scary for these huge companies, because it's associated with piracy.
Sure, your deploy times to your container fleet can be 70% faster, but if you're using BitTorrent, it'll be very hard to push that through leadership.
Many see that as a sign that they won't be 100% focused on the task at hand.
You may or may not think that's a fine thing to do, but it is the only thing you can pretend Sonarr is for.