[smoe]

> The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability.

Sure, as far as I'm aware code of conducts/ethics only ever apply to contributors, no-one has beliefs being forced upon them. But that seems to be about the highest bar of entry for an interested developer I have seen in any project.

Not waving pitchforks here, I'm fine with them having this code of ethics, even tough I disagree with about half the points and find being asked to do such a pledge way to intrusive into personal life.

[ripley12]

SQLite generally doesn't accept contributions. "Open-Source, not Open-Contribution" https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

[smoe]

Even when not accepting outside contributions, to fulfill their long term support commitment through 2050, they might have to make changes to their current core team.

[threatofrain]

If they do, then they will have to find people who embrace Christian spiritualism. That's going to be a lot easier than finding Lisp devs. Similarly, Christian institutions seek Christian employees and they fire those who cannot abide.

Can't a software project be like a Christian church?

[smoe]

Personally, I don’t have a problem with a software project being run like a church. Don’t know what the legal situation is.

How common are those views in question tough? I’d say about 9/10 Christians I know from Europe and Latin America would find several of these points too extreme. But yes, that leaves probably still more people than lisp devs …

[worthless-trash]

> That's going to be a lot easier than finding Lisp devs.

I'm attacked ! out with your intolerance :P

[jacooper]

I don't understand why he didn't just use MIT or CC0 as license.

It gives the same rights and the same limitless nature, so why use an arbitrary license which might cause problems in some countries ? And also makes the contribution workflow more complex?

[MatthiasPortzel]

MIT requires that a copy of the license is distributed with the software—which means it is not strictly public-domain equivalent.

CC0 was not intended to be used as a software license, and IRCC includes a clause that the author withholds any patent rights, which which has its own set of concerns.

In practice, either of them would have worked fine, but part of the beauty of public domain code is that you can avoid having to specify a license.

[kwhitefoot]

There is no license. And all the contributors are in countries that recognize the concept of public domain. Why should they concern themselves with the niceties of licensing in some countries? How would choosing a different license guarantee a different outcome in those unspecified some countries?

[chasil]

This point seems incongruous to me, without its opposite:

"45. Be in dread of hell."

In zeal for mutual understanding, and practical fruit in general solutions that solve problems escaping a single perspective, would be that opposite for me.

We cannot approach the sublime within ourselves by fear, in my opinion.

There are a few other well-known teachings that appear to be missing from these rules, the first among them is the New Commandment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Commandment

[tootie]

I'm not sure what their organization is exactly but a private company isn't allowed to force a religious test on employees. I think it doesn't apply to an open source project but I sure don't like it. It's exclusionary.

[mechanical_bear]

Then don’t use it. Here’s your refund: