3 ms·
I think it’s entirely valid for a community to decide they don’t want participation and funding from a defence contractor. That isn’t a scapegoat - it’s the act
by matthewmacleod 2y ago
I think it’s entirely valid for a community to decide they don’t want participation and funding from a defence contractor. That isn’t a scapegoat - it’s the actual goal.
You may or may not agree with this stance and that is totally fine. You’re still free to use the software for whatever you want; you can also go ahead and fork it, or create a new community endorsing this use. If enough people agree then it will thrive. That’s the beauty of it!
A specific community has the freedom—within the bounds of legality—to decide who is welcome to participate.
- mongol 2y agoThe problem is, there is not a community that is in agreement about this. There is a subset of the community, that like to pretend they are and speak for "the community", and when they get pushback from those that disagree they call it concern-trolling.
- matthewmacleod 2y agoI'm confused about what the problem is then – why are you paying attention to those people?
- mongol 2y agoHow could I not? They are incredibly loud.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ranger_danger 2y ago> I think it’s entirely valid for a community to decide they don’t want participation and funding from a defence contractor. Be that as it may, we wouldn't have computers or the internet if everyone acted like that.