91–100 of 286 posts
Skimming the letter makes it look like another attempt at pushing through their Code of Conduct (RFC98) targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry", whatever that means. Now going a step further by erasing the people in charge.
> targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" Is targeting "ideas rooted in fascism or bigotry" a bad thing?
They're going to continue to use Nix either way, and in the same way that the community can fork Nix because they're unhappy with the sponsorship, so can Anduril - and their fork might just be private.
Defence companies and all sorts of other companies that people might disagree with heavily use open source projects.
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 ende…
Isn't that exactly what the free software movement is based upon? You can only use our software if you agree to share your source code modifications with the binary (death to proprietary software, very ideological) and you can only contribute if you agree if that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it slanderous to point out the board composition is not representative of the community. Seriously walk me through this one.
I don't believe that the boards composition for engineering and technological organizations or projects should be chosen based on the results of measuring skulls, genetics or what partners they openly prefer for sexual intercourse, that seems unrelated to the work. The slander against the board is quite obvious and I believe you're being disingenuous.
So no, I still can't see slander. What is obvious to you is not apparent to me at all so please walk me through it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quotes from the article linked: > the community is heavily leaning into what might be termed the myth of marginalization > this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism How can one take this document seriously after reading these sentences?
The document uses support for its claims. Yup, the language is obviously quite emotional and biased, but the facts are correct nonetheless. Do you have any particular/specific issues with the issues raised in this RFC?^^
> Simultaneously, this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism combined with an abusive extension of the paradox of tolerance (originally formulated by Karl Popper with a very different intent) to portray their opponents as bad-faith actors, or even as outright evil. They themselves, of course, do everything they can to appear justified in exercising power with absolutely no accountability, and with a clear sense of their own privileged entitlement to do so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The license allowing for something does not mean you are okay with anyone being part of your community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The free software zealots are a tiny fraction of the open source community.
My understanding of your comment is that "free software zealots" are people who belong to the "free software movement" [1]. If that's correct, where did you get the impression it's "a tiny fraction of the open source community"? This article [2] from 2022 states that 22% of software project have a copyleft license. Is that a fraction you'd deem "tiny"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement [2] http…
Another example There are a number of "rust zealots" who believe it's a moral imperative to rewrite all software in rust, and any who disagrees is immoral and acting in bad faith. Similarly the number of people who are rust zealots are a small fraction of those who like and advocate for rust.
The Anduril issue seems to have been the main catalyst for the drama. Seems like Anduril probably did more harm then good - who at Anduril couldn't have predicted that the Nix folks would start to have a major freakout the minute they attempted to sponsor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quotes from the article linked: > the community is heavily leaning into what might be termed the myth of marginalization > this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism How can one take this document seriously after reading these sentences?
It's a bit skewed as far as the author's perspective, but so is everything. It's like reading the news. You have to filter past the bias and look at the facts. The picture that it paints about the actions of the people involved is accurate.
No.
It just criticizes one group for pushing for a specific ideology and then starts pushing for it's own subjective ideology while championing itself as the "rational" and "neutral" position.