In any case, anyone is free to do with their code whatever they like. If you depend on anyone else's code keep in mind that you do not have control over them and any expectations you may have about their actions may not match theirs, so take that into consideration when making those dependencies.

What he did was make a statement. He made it clear to the Chef _company_ that he can not,non good conscience, contribute code to organizations that he feels are working with extremely bad actors. This is his way of protesting. Chef is able to (and in fact already has) ignored him and restored a copy of his code and formed it under a new name. (Citation needed but I believe that was a statement from Seth I'm Twitter.)

To everyone snubbing Seth for doing this, let's go "Nazi" with it. If Chef did a deal with the Aryan Nation and FOSS contributors pulled their core and support, would people feel the same? Probably not, right? Well, to many, what ICE is doing is _literally_ along the lines of what the Nazi party did. (I'm not asking that anyone agree with that sentiment, just that they acknowledge that it exists.)

So, Seth exercised his right to free speech and right to protest by publicly pulling support for an organization that he has helped significantly. This is a loss for the Chef org and the Chef community. It has also been quite effective because this isn't the first place where I've seen this conversation and it won't be the last, in the next few days.

Moreover this program began under the Obama admin. So the decision itself is internally inconsistent.

Why not? Or even, occasionally evaluate and determine worthiness?

C & C INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS & CONSULTANTS, INC. is listed in the contract with these business types:

- Woman Owned Business

- Women Owned Small Business

- Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business

- Minority Owned Business

- Black American Owned Business

- Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt

- For Profit Organization

- DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

- Small Disadvantaged Business

- 8a Program Participant

Not a great look, for him or his employer.

That’s like ICE buying Cisco switches from a 3rd party and getting mad at Cisco isn’t it?

Then, we can turn off our code, make a big announcement, and feel good about ourselves without making any meaningful effort to actually help.

What. A. Great. Plan.

You see, then, the dire trouble we are in as a polity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chef_(software)

[1] https://esolangs.org/wiki/Chef

Great, take something out on me because of your personal politics!

I, for one, look forward to a future of navigating politicized open-source constraints of each creator.

And of course, the creator of Chef-Sugar works for Google.

Edit: Here's a mirror: https://gitlab.openminds.be/mirror/chef-sugar/-/branches

Edit: Appears Chef itself has taken over: https://github.com/chef/chef-sugar

Looking through the commit history[0], he doesn't even look to be all that prolific as compared to other contributors. One would imagine those folks would keep on keeping on in some fashion.

[0] - https://gitlab.openminds.be/mirror/chef-sugar/commits/master

Seth, to his credit, is doing what he can about his. Legally, there isn't much. But if a minor inconvenience--and it is minor because Chef is already busily scrubbing his name from "chef-sugar-ng", including removing him from the cookbook's authors, they can get their replacement just fine--alerts members of the Chef community to their ratshit behavior, that's a positive. Because some, who do not hold amorality as a virtue as is en vogue in these parts, will probably take exception to it, too, and they should know.

You get what you pay for.

> feel free not to use it.

If you disagree, feel free not to comment /s

So when we discover one bad person using our software and subsequently yank it, aren't we being a bit hypocritical?

* I quote that because not everyone agrees that DHS and ICE are bad actors and want to avoid a political tangent

But if I used Puppet I'd be just as ripshit and hold them to the same standards.

> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

---

Being potentially used by organizations you don't agree with is what open source entails.

There also appears to be nothing wrong in the FOSS model of taking the last published version and forking it... and releasing that.

Others can pick it up from where you left and continue, of course.

That is their right.

It’s a bit of immature posturing.

If I need something and I can’t buy it directly I’ll go to a third party who will buy it for me. So it’s kind of futile anyway.

Imagine if Bernie wins and then everyone who doesn’t like socialized medicine (physicians, etc., go on strike — oh, my bad, they wouldn’t be allowed). Or big pharma said, we’re not selling to government, they are telling us to depress prices, we disagree!

Big pharma has said this many times to many governments. When Brazil started to negotiate, we had to invalidate patents so somebody would sell the drugs.

The pharma industries were acting like perfect assholes, denying their product to people that need it for strong-arming them into unreasonable prices. But that's entirely dependent on the details, they could be as well just be negotiating a fair price and the description above wouldn't change a bit.

The government was well within its right to invalidate the patents for protecting its people. That again is dependent on the details, it could be an antieconomical action against the freedom of initiative and still have the same description. The fact that those same pharma companies currently get more profit than they did at the time, by selling a much larger amount of medicine (for a lower unitary price) is strong evidence that the government was right.