Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
🐈‍⬛🐾

@LaF0rge hmm consider: employee might do contributions on company time, working on things important to said company. if the company is engaging in support of warcrimes or whatever, I think it is valid to restrict contributions from said employee.

Personally I don't want any company in the "defense" industry to do with anything in my software stack. I think their morals are rotten and I do not trust them to make decisions, as their objectives stray too far from my own.

4 comments | Expand all CWs
LaF0rge

@maris what I fail to see is any evidence. Where is the public record that shows the detailed analysis for each of the removed entries? Like "Joe Doe is currently an employee of Evilcorp [as seen in this LinkedIn profile], the company is listed in this (linked) version of that embargo list". That could all go into the commit message of that one removal. Like it was done, it appears more like people having a mail.ru account were removed because they use that email provider...

🐈‍⬛🐾

@LaF0rge I definitely agree on the lack of transparency

Wilfried Klaebe

@maris On not wanting contributions from the "defense" industry: that will quickly devolve into a question of where to draw the line. Samsung builds tanks and firearms. "[T]he U.S. Army is the single largest installed base for Red Hat Linux". Would you exclude RedHat? Why/why not?

@LaF0rge

🐈‍⬛🐾

@wonka samsung is a conglomerate with multiple departments (some of which you probably should exclude), redhat is a huge consulting company with customers distributed in all sectors.
we should have discussions with all kind commercial influence in oss, though.

a company like Rheinmetall or anduril should definitely be excluded. no second thoughts.

Go Up