I agree with SnoopJ here but I want to put a subtly different spin on this and make a somewhat more non-negotiable request of my audience.
-
-
@SnoopJ @glyph Maybe put differently, I do understand the imperatives of fundraising. Blender may have had a hard choice, but what they chose was to betray artists at a fundamental level. That might be the least bad choice available, but it's still bad, and should be criticized on that basis.
(FWIW, I also view software dev as creative labor, and PSF's coziness with genAI companies as being similarly bad.)
-
@xgranade @SnoopJ Your criticism is not invalid, and I don't think you're harassing anyone, but when I said "consider the perspective of the fundraisers" I meant that quite literally. Both to be kinder to them, perhaps, but also to be more effective at influencing them, and to understand the inherently compromised nature of *being* a fundraiser in the first place. Just saying "don't take the money, this donor is bad" is the kind of thing they are used to ignoring, because *most* donors are bad
@glyph @xgranade and not to put too fine a point on it, but large communities are also used to ignoring the surge of sudden outrage over an announcement, because they know it'll ebb, and whatever sentiment is left *after that* will be what actually influences organizational behaviors.
I didn't mean to come across like anything you were saying was invalid, and I think it's not-nothing to speak up now even if I think it's a bad trade of psychic energy for most folks (*especially* those who are not members of the community or intending to become one)
-
-
@glyph Apologies, but I don't agree with either of you, and this is a rare bad take from you.
It's NEVER OK to accept gifts of any kind from groups of people who want to essentially dominate the world.
Even if they are foolish and wrong and their ambition never comes to fruition and it's just "free money", knowingly and consciously accepting gifts from people you know are causing great harm in the world taints you, irreparably.
@distractal I appreciate the respectful expression of this disagreement but the generalized "NEVER OK" form of this as a moral principle is incoherent.
For example, USAID was a projection of US soft power, a much more explicit way to "dominate the world" than any company donating to an open source project.
Would you suggest that DOGE did a net-good thing in the world by destroying it, because the people who were receiving its help are now dying rather than morally compromised?
