5 ms·

This seems....oddly political for a low-level open source technology. Reminds me of the peace-not-war controversy [1] [2]. Edit: I'm surprised at the number of

This seems....oddly political for a low-level open source technology. Reminds me of the peace-not-war controversy [1] [2]. Edit: I'm surprised at the number of people here supporting political statements in open source. I was under the assumption that most people hated the peacenotwar module, but I guess opinions are more evenly split than I thought. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacenotwar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacenotwar [2]: https://snyk.io/blog/peacenotwar-malicious-npm-node-ipc-package-vulnerability/ https://snyk.io/blog/peacenotwar-malicious-npm-node-ipc-pack...

fock 4y ago
it's a factual statement.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  And it's a fact that the Russian Ukraine conflict has killed many and caused untold damage on the world. Yet many people, who were against the war, still didn't want irrelevant political narrative in their npm packages, even when it almost never affected them (since it was targeting Russian IPs)
  - topranks 4y ago
    The two situations are completely different. The websockets library has not had anything malicious added to it. Only the lead dev says he won’t help certain users.
  - fock 4y ago
    how is sabotage linked to a statement of fact?
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      Well it was linked when the maintainer added the peacenotwar module
FartyMcFarter 4y ago
If someone strongly dislikes one of the use cases for their tech, it is natural that they won't want to devote their time to helping that use case. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
ylyn 4y ago
I don't really understand why open source maintainers somehow cannot make political statements. Why are they special? Commercial organisations make political statements all the time, usually at their own peril, so why can't open source projects do the same?
- TAForObvReasons 4y ago
  Those sorts of comments sound like "shut up and code", the software equivalent of "shut up and dribble"
- koheripbal 4y ago
  They can do whatever they want, obviously, but when my toaster starts preaching a political agenda while I'm making breakfast, I'll probably get a different toaster. ..."free" doesn't mean you don't lose the respect of your users when you go off mission. People who preach sometimes forget how often most of us are preached to, and how little we're interested in hearing some random dev's political opinion. There are also legitimate security concerns around devs with political motivations and the willingness to leverage their projects for their agenda.
  - closewith 4y ago
    The developer is hardly preaching by refusing to support - for free and in their own time - a use-case that they don’t agree with. Unless you seek out their help, this doesn’t affect you at all.
  - shafyy 4y ago
    > I'll probably get a different toaster. And you're free to use a different open source library.
  - shreddit 4y ago
    And this is the “best” part about open source. The dev does not have to care about any ones opinion. You don’t pay their rent. You don’t pay their food. If they loose you, they don’t care. They don’t need you at all. You need their software. You want security? Pay for it. You don’t want a political statement? Pay for it.
formerly_proven 4y ago
They're just saying "I don't like $thing and won't help you with it".
brainwipe 4y ago
Perhaps it's because open source maintainers are people rather than corporations. People have the right to decide when to use their free time. In this case, this individual has decided not to support crypto, as is their right. Making something open source doesn't mean you have to support everybody. They're welcome to fork and meet their own needs.
FartyMcFarter 4y ago
> I was under the assumption that most people hated the peacenotwar module, but I guess opinions are more evenly split than I thought. I think you're the only one who is conflating the topic with this "peacenotwar" thing, and other people are only expressing an opinion on the on-topic subject?
batmansmk 4y ago
There was a time where we were being political for doing open source… we were characterised as communists by some, extreme left wing activists for others for having a movement, that defended affordable transparent software for all. So yeah little bud, open source was a political statement.
- guelo 4y ago
  Everything we do is political. The original Stallman "free (as in freedom) software" movement had anti-corporate politics. The "Open Source Software" movement was a deliberate attempt to coopt the movement to be more pro-corpotate.
gaazoh 4y ago
This is hardly comparable to peace-not-war. Peace-not-war was malware, or more broadly sabotage, this is merely a statement. While both are a form of protesting and stating political stances, one is usually illegal and widely rejected while the other is protected by the UN's declaration of human rights and by the constitution of any non-authoritarian country.

fock 4y ago

it's a factual statement.

woojoo666 4y ago
And it's a fact that the Russian Ukraine conflict has killed many and caused untold damage on the world. Yet many people, who were against the war, still didn't want irrelevant political narrative in their npm packages, even when it almost never affected them (since it was targeting Russian IPs)
- topranks 4y ago
  The two situations are completely different. The websockets library has not had anything malicious added to it. Only the lead dev says he won’t help certain users.
- fock 4y ago
  how is sabotage linked to a statement of fact?
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    Well it was linked when the maintainer added the peacenotwar module

FartyMcFarter 4y ago

If someone strongly dislikes one of the use cases for their tech, it is natural that they won't want to devote their time to helping that use case. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

ylyn 4y ago

I don't really understand why open source maintainers somehow cannot make political statements. Why are they special? Commercial organisations make political statements all the time, usually at their own peril, so why can't open source projects do the same?

TAForObvReasons 4y ago
Those sorts of comments sound like "shut up and code", the software equivalent of "shut up and dribble"
koheripbal 4y ago
They can do whatever they want, obviously, but when my toaster starts preaching a political agenda while I'm making breakfast, I'll probably get a different toaster. ..."free" doesn't mean you don't lose the respect of your users when you go off mission. People who preach sometimes forget how often most of us are preached to, and how little we're interested in hearing some random dev's political opinion. There are also legitimate security concerns around devs with political motivations and the willingness to leverage their projects for their agenda.
- closewith 4y ago
  The developer is hardly preaching by refusing to support - for free and in their own time - a use-case that they don’t agree with. Unless you seek out their help, this doesn’t affect you at all.
- shafyy 4y ago
  > I'll probably get a different toaster. And you're free to use a different open source library.
- shreddit 4y ago
  And this is the “best” part about open source. The dev does not have to care about any ones opinion. You don’t pay their rent. You don’t pay their food. If they loose you, they don’t care. They don’t need you at all. You need their software. You want security? Pay for it. You don’t want a political statement? Pay for it.

formerly_proven 4y ago

They're just saying "I don't like $thing and won't help you with it".

brainwipe 4y ago

Perhaps it's because open source maintainers are people rather than corporations. People have the right to decide when to use their free time. In this case, this individual has decided not to support crypto, as is their right. Making something open source doesn't mean you have to support everybody. They're welcome to fork and meet their own needs.

FartyMcFarter 4y ago

> I was under the assumption that most people hated the peacenotwar module, but I guess opinions are more evenly split than I thought. I think you're the only one who is conflating the topic with this "peacenotwar" thing, and other people are only expressing an opinion on the on-topic subject?

batmansmk 4y ago

There was a time where we were being political for doing open source… we were characterised as communists by some, extreme left wing activists for others for having a movement, that defended affordable transparent software for all. So yeah little bud, open source was a political statement.

guelo 4y ago
Everything we do is political. The original Stallman "free (as in freedom) software" movement had anti-corporate politics. The "Open Source Software" movement was a deliberate attempt to coopt the movement to be more pro-corpotate.

gaazoh 4y ago

This is hardly comparable to peace-not-war. Peace-not-war was malware, or more broadly sabotage, this is merely a statement. While both are a form of protesting and stating political stances, one is usually illegal and widely rejected while the other is protected by the UN's declaration of human rights and by the constitution of any non-authoritarian country.