It approaches the problem from entirely the wrong end. Code is code and we shouldn't be adding ever more licenses and conditions to it.

Besides the definition of 'evil' is a purely political one. While ICE is a good example, what about Cuba? Many people would claim Cuba is a despotic terrible regime (I wouldn't agree) and US sanctions already stop certain goods and services being provided to Cuba. What about a research department in Iran using code to predict earthquakes? What about here in the UK, the department of work and pensions (DWP) is undergoing a huge IT overhaul, my belief is their current incarnation is borderline fascist and anyone working with them is committing social murder, but it's not clear cut.

But these aren't code's problems to solve. They're ours,they're for politics to solve and that's a messy process that shouldn't interfere with a movement to build a commons of knowledge in the form of code. The same with Amazon or whoever profiting without giving back. I believe, as do many others, that the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos is obscene and unjustifiable (many others, especially here feel opposite). But trying to thrash out these issues through code licenses is just absurd.

While I'm all for things like codes of conduct to improve conditions on open source projects the reasons given here for putting up fences around the 'commons' of open source just seem wrongheaded.

As a final example take decentralised technologies. A lot of actual usage is by people who don't want to be monitored for more nefarious reasons (human trafficking, csa etc) (alongside/counter-to genuinely positive usages like whistle blowing, evading censorship, etc) but that's not a flaw with the technology, we have social structures to deal with that sort of thing.

that decision, though, is unfortunate IMHO. esp seeing that the userland votes are overwhelmingly pro while the devs are con.

I'm torn in many ways; I don't believe constraining what people can build in their own time or for personal use is just, or grounds for moral censure as long as the process of doing so causes no substantial harm.

What I have issue with is applications of a tool with intent to harm. I can get behind some censure if the guy is providing support for users one can reasonably suspect of employing the tool to cause harm, like the Syria use case.

I don't buy that his production of a R.A.T. fundamentally makes him a horrible person just because he made it. Then again, I'm also in a way excusing the people who made industrial scale production of poison gas possible; but, as of late, I'm learning more and more that truly standing up for one's ideals, and everyone else's freedoms/Liberty often makes for rather uncomfortable bed mates.

So I guess in the end, I'm willing to accept that no matter what is made, there are people who will find ways to use something to cause harm; demonizing the maker as if that will "unmake" what you disagree with only serves to chain the development of humankind in very real ways. Sometimes, we have to face horrible things to develop the cultural mores to cope with a world in which a thing is possible.

So in conclusion, I suppose I'm throwing up my hands and saying it'll be what it's going to be, and there but for the Grace of God go I.

If code was treated more like ideas or recipes we'd all still have jobs.

If you believe that strongly enough, civil disobedience through ignoring licenses is one approach. No one should risk more than they're willing to lose on the position because you will lose if it's costing someone else enough.

Not everything we dislike is a violation of ethics.

To me your response justifies the way I look at the world. The whole point of seeing things as "software politics" is to try to divide developers up into groups who each thinks that they are so obviously right that no justification is needed, and think that the others are so obviously wrong that you don't even know where you'd begin a discussion. And once you know what pressure point divides them, then you can actually try to start a productive discussion.

Speaking personally, I would die in an organization like that. I can look at it, see what's at stake, can accept that they are doing the right thing for their problem. But I am very glad that I can find things to do where the cost of smoking out the very last bug in my software is not as important as the profit from making the next thing that I'm going to make.

There was no war. There was only "I'm not using your code unless I can see what it does and do whatever I want with it." It wasn't a statement of conflict, it was one of choosing ones own way without compromise. Then some people said "I like that idea, here, I made this, do what you want with it, but it's not mine, it's yours, problems and all."

That's all there is to any of this. There is no ethical responsibility. People doing something for fun for free dont owe anyone any degree of professionalism. If you want to burden yourself with the expectations of others that is your right, but just because you do it doesn't make it some standard everyone has to live up to.

I respect their decision and rights, but I don't really understand this move. I also believe this sets a dangerous potential pattern within the developer community. I personally don't agree with certain statements/immigration/ICE etc. but I'm more put back by this.

Coding is becoming easier and will increasingly include more of the general population (which is a good thing). This means it's about to become much more diverse in regards to religion, political beliefs, personal morals, citizenship, etc.

I don't mean this in the political/philosophical sense. I mean soon people will start showing up in Github/twitter comments, contributing pull requests, with a genuine interest about coding, who look like people you personally dislike. Maybe they are wearing a Trump t-shirt in their profile photo, but their code is great. Are you going to reject their pull request or ignore their comments?

Governments & company policies change frequently. There's also an unlimited combination of potential beliefs, moral stances, crimes by an unlimited number of people and companies. At what point would you decide to add or remove amendments to your license?

I also feel it's hypocritical to use a product owned by Microsoft (github), while calling them out in your license by name. I mean, are you protesting Microsoft or aren't you?

How do you know that an upstream dependency you are benefitting from wasn't created by one of these companies?

To highlight the humor of this line of thinking, why not block oppressive regimes, serial killers (>= 6 people, <6 are ok), certain religious groups with worse principals than ICE?

Any effort to disenfranchise me from those rights is, in my opinion, unethical. If a company were to try to do so under the guise of a semantic argument, I would find it even more distasteful.

I think I disagree that it is always good.

For instance, if a company is paying someone to work on open source, and they use that to leverage the project in a direction that is against its other users' best interest, can that be good? I don't think so.

There are numerous examples of situations and behaviors you could come up with that are not 'good'.

I'm all for people making a living, but I don't like bad behavior, no matter if it generates 'freeish' source code or not.

What's more, Mr. Lemercier's asked that Autodesk no longer sell their software to dirty companies like the ones they were discussing. "Policing couldn't be easier...Don't accept their money."

Without even getting into the question of what Autodesk should or shouldn't do, I do think it's completely unfair to elide the difference between (declining Mr. Lemercier's idea) and (actively endorsing the environmental destruction found in Autodesk's downstream).

I think the reason that happens for ruby and python is so many of the people using those platforms are startups where the technologists are the guys calling the shots, and it probably doesn't work universally, but I am glad I work in a part of the industry where we let people participate on their own terms, it just seems more meaningful.

I totally get that it isn't like that everywhere though, and the only way to get good cooperation is to hold a gun to the head of large corporations.

Because this is a linter, that will help coders code well, and not a facial recognition suite that will facilitate totalitarian regimes as they crack down on dissidents.