[sebastien_b]

A potential employer doing that will open themselves up to some serious legal problems.

"Oh, you committed code to a repo I consider dubious though nothing proven... hmmm not sure I'll hire you".

"Oh, you shop at a store run by a non-white person.... hmmm not sure I'll hire you".

"Oh, you follow a religion, but I'm atheist... hmmm not sure I'll hire you".

... the list goes on.

[pmiller2]

Except that one of these is legal under federal (and most state) laws, and the other two are not.

[wernercd]

Show where in the list of protected classes (race, sex, ethnicity, etc) "your choice of programming projects" is covered?

Two of those are protected classes... the third one isn't.

[sebastien_b]

Show on the list where youtube-dl has been proven illegal.

Implying criminality because you're participating on something "of dubious legality" defined nebulously ("guilt by association") wouldn't play well.

[jhomedall]

As per the post you are replying to, choice of programming project is, unlike race and religion, not a protected class. It is perfectly legal in the US for a company to discriminate based on it.

A company could also freely and legally discriminate based on whether or not you prefer whole-wheat bread. That's not a protected class. It doesn't matter that whole-wheat bread is legal.

[johnny_b_g]

I think you guys are conflating this with what the poster is getting at, which based on what was said ("implying criminality"), is more akin to defamation (though admittedly the choice of earlier examples is poor).

If, as an employer, I decide that because you chose a specific project (or political party, or brand of motor bike, etc. anything whose association has potential 'dubious legal status') that you're part of a criminal organization (and hence a criminal, or any other description that might be undesirable/harmful) because of that and don't hire you, that may put me at risk.

Obviously there would be a legal bar to meet from that, not the least of which would be proving that it was intentional to defame the person, and resulted in actual damages to that person (i.e. proper standing - would not getting the job be enough?)

IDK IANAL, but I sure AF wouldn't want to be the trailblazer for finding out (like IBM is right now).

[sebastien_b]

Johnny gets it

[wernercd]

I didn't imply YTDL was illegal. My response was directly to your implication that "committed code to a repo" (or however you want to phrase it) is a protected class like race or sex.

> "Oh, you committed code to a repo I consider dubious though nothing proven... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". > "Oh, you shop at a store run by a non-white person.... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". > "Oh, you follow a religion, but I'm atheist... hmmm not sure I'll hire you".

There are zero laws on the books to stop a company from firing you for committing code to an open source project.

Unless you can find me a law that actually says "Companies can't terminate employment or otherwise discriminate based on a code repo commit".

There ARE actual laws that say "You can't discriminate based on Race/Religion/Sex/ethnicity/etc".

Whether or not YTDL is illegal (I doubt it is) is irrelevant to this thread. Just like a company firing you because of a post on facebook or twitter is generally allowed (local laws and state statutes may grant more protections).

Please... prove me wrong and provide laws - local or otherwise - and possible a case where someone successfully sued for wrongful discrimination based on code they wrote.