4 ms·

They are absolutely corrupt -- intentionally corrupt, but the intention was to break the software in retaliation. Drilling holes in your boat to sink it means

They are absolutely corrupt -- intentionally corrupt, but the intention was to break the software in retaliation. Drilling holes in your boat to sink it means yes, it is sinking "as intended", but it's still an act of sabotage. I suppose you can specifically argue against the word corrupt as implying a corruption of the author's intention, but I think it also applies to "does not behave as anticipated". (now, the interesting question is how fair is it to anticipate free work from an individual -- I don't know where to draw the line, but this seems to cross some boundary...)

josephcsible 5y ago
> now, the interesting question is how fair is it to anticipate free work from an individual I don't really see how this is relevant. Suddenly doing no more free work at all would have been perfectly fine, but this was intentionally breaking preexisting code.
no_wizard 5y ago
To me it is a smear to say it’s corrupt and/or malicious when a maintainer takes the project into a direction they want like this. It’s demonstrably true that this is now intended behavior of the code. Disagreeing with the changes, not liking the changes, if it causes problems for your projects etc does not automatically mean it’s malicious, a vulnerability, or corrupt. I feel this language is used intentionally to smear the maintainer and paper over a real conversation over open source, responsibilities of maintainers and consumers, and the ecosystem as a whole. Instead it’s all about the “vulnerability” caused by the maintainers choices to commit “malicious” code. Did the maintainer drastically change the software? You bet they did. Does that mean it’s malicious, a vulnerability, and/or corrupt? No. This isn’t an illicit cryptominer or process injection etc. the host machines are not being exploited in a malicious way. You can disagree with the actions and what they are doing etc, but labels matter, and I think this is an intentional labeling of this to skirt around having real conversations around OSS, maintainability, the role of consumers etc
CRConrad 5y ago
> Drilling holes in your boat to sink it means yes, it is sinking "as intended", but it's still an act of sabotage. No, it's scuttling. "Sabotage" is when you do it to other people's stuff. It was his code, so it can't have been sabotage.

josephcsible 5y ago

> now, the interesting question is how fair is it to anticipate free work from an individual I don't really see how this is relevant. Suddenly doing no more free work at all would have been perfectly fine, but this was intentionally breaking preexisting code.

no_wizard 5y ago

To me it is a smear to say it’s corrupt and/or malicious when a maintainer takes the project into a direction they want like this. It’s demonstrably true that this is now intended behavior of the code. Disagreeing with the changes, not liking the changes, if it causes problems for your projects etc does not automatically mean it’s malicious, a vulnerability, or corrupt. I feel this language is used intentionally to smear the maintainer and paper over a real conversation over open source, responsibilities of maintainers and consumers, and the ecosystem as a whole. Instead it’s all about the “vulnerability” caused by the maintainers choices to commit “malicious” code. Did the maintainer drastically change the software? You bet they did. Does that mean it’s malicious, a vulnerability, and/or corrupt? No. This isn’t an illicit cryptominer or process injection etc. the host machines are not being exploited in a malicious way. You can disagree with the actions and what they are doing etc, but labels matter, and I think this is an intentional labeling of this to skirt around having real conversations around OSS, maintainability, the role of consumers etc

CRConrad 5y ago

> Drilling holes in your boat to sink it means yes, it is sinking "as intended", but it's still an act of sabotage. No, it's scuttling. "Sabotage" is when you do it to other people's stuff. It was his code, so it can't have been sabotage.