It's not odd at all if you understand the purpose of SQLite's governance model. Much better than letting VC + SV rat fuck everything for solitary monetary gain.
No, this is just sour grapes because you clearly disagree with people that don't adhere to your ideology. Thank fuck for that, people like you are why devs get burnt out.
I haven't heard a cult literally defined as "any group that filters based on their religion". The definition most people have is <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult" rel="nofollow">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult which implies coercion, manipulation, extremism.
Can you explain your view more? Otherwise, this sounds like a motte-and-bailey game.
A church is commonly expected to filter on religion (somewhat, many welcome respectful outsiders). A software project filtering on religion is very different. One common aspect of cults is pervading every aspect of people's lives, including their work ("company store" style).
Full acknowledgement for the fact that the line between "religion" and "cult" is blurry, but "all developers of this project must share a common religion and agree to these monastic religious tenets" sure ticks some boxes on "extremism".
They are, of course, free to do so; freedom of association is their right. Others are free to judge them for it, and to question whether they should be using the resulting software. The license is open, the community is not. So, seeing a project come along that looks to build something more open (and it's really saying something when "project whose governance is owned by a company, but open to pull requests" is more open) seems like a positive step.
(Also, as a database project, surely they shouldn't be mixing church and state. ;) )
That explains why they don't accept code contributions. The test harness thing is just strange, they put out "certified" binaries for free but keep the test code closed.
That's basically the opposite of any other project where you pay to get support and a certified official build of the exact same code as open source releases, and if there's a private part it's paperwork you can show as proof of compliance for safety critical systems.
arnath · · focus · HN ↗
loufe · · focus · HN ↗
shimman · · focus · HN ↗
JoshTriplett · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
shimman · · focus · HN ↗
JoshTriplett · · focus · HN ↗
chambers · · focus · HN ↗
Can you explain your view more? Otherwise, this sounds like a motte-and-bailey game.
JoshTriplett · · focus · HN ↗
Full acknowledgement for the fact that the line between "religion" and "cult" is blurry, but "all developers of this project must share a common religion and agree to these monastic religious tenets" sure ticks some boxes on "extremism".
They are, of course, free to do so; freedom of association is their right. Others are free to judge them for it, and to question whether they should be using the resulting software. The license is open, the community is not. So, seeing a project come along that looks to build something more open (and it's really saying something when "project whose governance is owned by a company, but open to pull requests" is more open) seems like a positive step.
(Also, as a database project, surely they shouldn't be mixing church and state. ;) )
tancop · · focus · HN ↗
That's basically the opposite of any other project where you pay to get support and a certified official build of the exact same code as open source releases, and if there's a private part it's paperwork you can show as proof of compliance for safety critical systems.