| 11 Mar 2024 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.net
Anduril is a sponsor of NixCon, and they donate to the documentation project on OpenCollective thanks. and that's the full extent of the relationships? | 20:04:19 |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Yes | 20:06:44 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | alright, thanks for the clarification | 20:07:13 |
 MangoIV | Has there been a protocol somewhere about why Anduril has been decided to comply with the interim sponsorship policy? | 20:36:24 |
| MangoIV | It’s not entirely clear to me. | 20:36:31 |
 mei 🌒& | I think the best we have is https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-foundation-board-meeting-minutes-2024-01-02-2024-02-03/39994#h-2024-02-03-foundation-board-in-person-fosdem-21 | 20:38:15 |
| MangoIV | I have seen this. Thank you :) it doesn’t answer my question that’s why I wondered whether there would be more information. | 20:39:11 |
 tomberek | I can help answer in DM or in this thread, as you wish. The closest thing to a codified policy is the discussion in matrix, followed by the resulting sponsorship policy proposal. I can also walk through the sequence of events. | 20:39:29 |
| MangoIV | Thank you I think the proposal is great, I just wonder how it has been decided that Anduril fulfils the requirements. | 20:41:06 |
| mei 🌒& | tomberek: Publicly please. | 20:47:32 |
 patka | There is not really much to oppose or question from my side. I just very much disagree with taking such a sponsor. So all I can do is remove donations to the Nix foundation | 20:48:57 |
 Shalok Shalom | In reply to @patka_123:matrix.org
There is not really much to oppose or question from my side. I just very much disagree with taking such a sponsor. So all I can do is remove donations to the Nix foundation I understand not liking, and not wanting to support such a company. | 20:51:48 |
| Shalok Shalom | Do you think, taking their money plays into that or is it purely a principle, to distance yourself so far as possible from them? | 20:52:22 |
| Shalok Shalom | 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 |
| Shalok Shalom | thanks | 20:53:35 |
| Shalok Shalom | 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 |
| Shalok Shalom | 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 |
| Shalok Shalom | Well, other open source communities and their contributors could see it critical, and consider NixOS a bad, unethical community or something. | 20:57:30 |
| Shalok Shalom | And that could be a call, we wouldnt loose for a while. | 20:57:41 |
| Shalok Shalom | "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 |
| Shalok Shalom | No, I absolutely do not say that. | 20:58:41 |
| Shalok Shalom | I just struggle to find a substantial ground to argue for or against this decision. | 20:59:04 |
| Shalok Shalom | 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 |
| Shalok Shalom | 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 |
| Shalok Shalom | 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 |
| Shalok Shalom | Which does exist, by the way. | 21:01:06 |
