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.