4 ms·

So he temporarily sabotaged many customers to make a political point about ICE because he believes they are immoral. I’m not sure two wrongs can make a right li

So he temporarily sabotaged many customers to make a political point about ICE because he believes they are immoral. I’m not sure two wrongs can make a right like that.

afandian 7y ago
Isn't that the whole point? Everyone should have a moral code because everyone's moral code could be a different?
commandlinefan 7y ago
This sort of thing hurts open source, too - when you buy software, the contract is that they'll continue allowing you to use it as long as the check clears. Now, with open source, you don't have to pay... but you have to run your business/government the way each individual developer agrees with?
- rsnor 7y ago
  Not exactly. Developers ultimately have judgement over which projects they contribute to, and if they feel that more harm is coming out of their work than good, then they have every right to cease development. Open source, compared to other development models, suffers the least from this problem in that there is no single developer that has jurisdiction over how the product is used. FOSS projects can always be forked, if need be.
- jen20 7y ago
  > when you buy software, the contract is that they'll continue allowing you to use it as long as the check clears Have you ever actually read a proprietary software license?
- olliej 7y ago
  ...yes? If you want to have availability guarantees you should arrange a paid contract. Otherwise you are literally demanding someone else do free work for you.
- rdl 7y ago
  Arguably he did people a service by reminding relying parties of this vulnerability. Both that upstreams might pull their repos, and that upstreams might incompetently run their distribution infrastructure (all the npm issues...)
- cabaalis 7y ago
  I'm going to have to say yes on this one. If you have no contract with the developer, you're SOL.
olliej 7y ago
No, Chef decided that they wanted to use someone else’s software, without paying that person, to do something that person didn’t want their software to be used for. So they stopped allowing chef to use their software. That Chef didn’t have an alternative is entirely on Chef. Unless of course you are saying that you believe that individuals should be required to provide it to anyone who asks?
- sdinsn 7y ago
  > they wanted to use someone else’s software, without paying that person Because the software was open source. > to do something that person didn’t want their software to be used for. I didn't realize Chef had to analyze every open source contributors political opinions. > So they stopped allowing chef to use their software. Which is against the entire idea of open source software.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    >I didn't realize Chef had to analyze every open source contributors political opinions. Arguably, they only have to analyze their own, if it's immoral enough.

So he temporarily sabotaged many customers to make a political point about ICE because he believes they are immoral. I’m not sure two wrongs can make a right like that.

afandian 7y ago

Isn't that the whole point? Everyone should have a moral code because everyone's moral code could be a different?

commandlinefan 7y ago

This sort of thing hurts open source, too - when you buy software, the contract is that they'll continue allowing you to use it as long as the check clears. Now, with open source, you don't have to pay... but you have to run your business/government the way each individual developer agrees with?

rsnor 7y ago
Not exactly. Developers ultimately have judgement over which projects they contribute to, and if they feel that more harm is coming out of their work than good, then they have every right to cease development. Open source, compared to other development models, suffers the least from this problem in that there is no single developer that has jurisdiction over how the product is used. FOSS projects can always be forked, if need be.
jen20 7y ago
> when you buy software, the contract is that they'll continue allowing you to use it as long as the check clears Have you ever actually read a proprietary software license?
olliej 7y ago
...yes? If you want to have availability guarantees you should arrange a paid contract. Otherwise you are literally demanding someone else do free work for you.
rdl 7y ago
Arguably he did people a service by reminding relying parties of this vulnerability. Both that upstreams might pull their repos, and that upstreams might incompetently run their distribution infrastructure (all the npm issues...)
cabaalis 7y ago
I'm going to have to say yes on this one. If you have no contract with the developer, you're SOL.

olliej 7y ago

No, Chef decided that they wanted to use someone else’s software, without paying that person, to do something that person didn’t want their software to be used for. So they stopped allowing chef to use their software. That Chef didn’t have an alternative is entirely on Chef. Unless of course you are saying that you believe that individuals should be required to provide it to anyone who asks?

sdinsn 7y ago
> they wanted to use someone else’s software, without paying that person Because the software was open source. > to do something that person didn’t want their software to be used for. I didn't realize Chef had to analyze every open source contributors political opinions. > So they stopped allowing chef to use their software. Which is against the entire idea of open source software.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  >I didn't realize Chef had to analyze every open source contributors political opinions. Arguably, they only have to analyze their own, if it's immoral enough.