And the open source aspects of this are barely a footnote. The issue isn't weaponization of open source, it's weaponization of software, i.e., cyberwarfare. Deb

And the open source aspects of this are barely a footnote. The issue isn't weaponization of open source, it's weaponization of software, i.e., cyberwarfare. Debating whether or not software that engages in this still meets one specific definition of "open source" is a question that closely resembles the "Maserati Problem" in its immediate relevance when compared to the other implications of these actions. It seems very weird to observe a malware attack in this situation proceed to make the malware's status as open source software a primary issue in discussing the attack. If someone feels the need to include it in the conversation then the appropriate ordering of the message should be more like: "unilateral escalation of the conflict by private individuals is a bad idea. Really you shouldn't be making decisions about how to handle a conflict that directly or indirectly involves half the world and multiple nuclear powers. Stick to activities that are legal when showing or giving support to the Ukrainians. And oh, yeah, I guess your code may not technically be open source anymore if you do this sort of thing."