| 11 Mar 2024 |
 shalokshalom | Or do you see real life benefits for them, if we take the money? | 20:52:35 |
 patka | I'm not really interested in a philosophical back and forth, sorry | 20:53:23 |
| shalokshalom | thanks | 20:53:35 |
| shalokshalom | I think we all can agree, that it can make a bad light, when people discuss this within the open source community. | 20:55:50 |
| shalokshalom | Has this been taken under consideration? | 20:56:02 |
| patka | In reply to @shalokshalom:dendrite.matrix.org
Has this been taken under consideration? What are you implying? Discussing what? And why in a bad light? | 20:56:37 |
| shalokshalom | Well, other open source communities and their contributors could see it critical, and consider NixOS a bad, unethical community or something. | 20:57:30 |
| shalokshalom | And that could be a call, we wouldnt loose for a while. | 20:57:41 |
| shalokshalom | "The arms dealer OS" or something like that. I think that would be a real consequence to consider. | 20:58:14 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | would they be wrong in considering it as such, if these are the decisions that are made? surely we are more concerned about the actual ethical situation of our community, than about 'keeping up appearances'? | 20:58:28 |
| shalokshalom | No, I absolutely do not say that. | 20:58:41 |
| shalokshalom | I just struggle to find a substantial ground to argue for or against this decision. | 20:59:04 |
| shalokshalom | And it seems, like very subjectively, that people are against this deal, simply because its an arms company. | 20:59:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | is that not enough? | 20:59:54 |
| shalokshalom | And thats a little vague for me. I consume ethically as well, and in all those cases I do so, since the consequences of my shopping do happen to concern me. | 21:00:08 |
| shalokshalom | But I have yet to find a way, how they are benefiting from us taking the money. Its not we have a license, that prevents them from using our code in the first place. | 21:00:46 |
| shalokshalom | Which does exist, by the way. | 21:01:06 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I mean, we could have a conversation about why a company like Anduril might choose to advertise at NixOS, but does that actually matter? like, regardless of their intentions, would we want to be collaborating with an arms dealer? | 21:01:44 |
| shalokshalom | The only way I can see how we could damage them, is by closing doors altogether | 21:01:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * I mean, we could have a conversation about why a company like Anduril might choose to advertise at NixOS, but does that actually matter? like, regardless of their intentions or strategies, would we want to be collaborating with an arms dealer? | 21:01:58 |
| shalokshalom | They advertise? | 21:02:02 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that is what sponsorship is | 21:02:10 |
| shalokshalom | That is an entirely different deal. | 21:02:15 |
| shalokshalom | I didnt know that. And would oppose that as well. I think this is not clearly communicated. I understood it purely as a donation. | 21:02:40 |
| shalokshalom | sorry | 21:02:53 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that may be true for the docs contribution (I have not checked this) but it is certainly not true for NixCon | 21:03:10 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | there is certainly an advertising component to it there | 21:03:21 |
| shalokshalom | I think we could split that right there. | 21:03:24 |
| shalokshalom | I would be fine with taking their money for documentation. And generally simply taking donations. | 21:03:55 |
| shalokshalom | But not sponsorships. | 21:04:10 |
