3 ms·
I understand that all of this may seem annoying to those that like to bury their head in the sand but where's this energy and label of "weaponisation" when OSS
by smashah 5y ago
I understand that all of this may seem annoying to those that like to bury their head in the sand but where's this energy and label of "weaponisation" when OSS is LITERALLY used to build weapons e.g openCV being used for mass surveillance & ardupilot/OSS drone projects being used to make tear gass deploying drones?
Changing the license is weaponisation?? It's the bare minimum and least intrusive. And then you all complain when someone tries to implement a Hippocratic or Do Not Harm license. "WEAPONSIATION"?? Really?
The lesson of all this is to keep an eye on your supply chain. Simple as. I think it's a sign of entitlement when you expect OSS devs to build you robust and reliable systems then leave the rest of themselves at the door.
- quasarj 5y agoAs the article explained, this is no longer an OSS project, so that part of your point is invalid. As for the first one, that's just whataboutism. Sure, we need to stand up to that too. But that changes nothing here.
- cuillevel3 5y agoWho cares about Eric Stallman's OSI? They don't get to decide what free software is.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]