[someplaceguy]

> In particular the civil clause demands that members of the university reject research projects and funding which could serve weapon technology.

Wait, what? Are you saying German universities are forbidden from contributing to Nix/NixOS, which is used by Anduril?

Or say, the RISC-V ecosystem, which may be used as chips driving military weapons?

... or the Linux kernel? Heck, any OS at all?

[jijijijij]

Sponsorship with the attached advertisement is very different than "used by". Don't be silly.

Are you even aware, I am referencing the issue of a Nix conference hosted at a German university, or are you in political autopilot drive-by mode?

I linked a Wikipedia article, read it, if you're genuinely interested and not debating in bad faith.

[someplaceguy]

> Sponsorship with the attached advertisement is very different than "used by". Don't be silly.

Sure, but what does that have to do with the Civil clause that you mentioned? It doesn't say anything about sponsorship, but it does say about "used by": "Any participation of science and research with military use or purpose must be rejected". Obviously, this cannot be true, since it can be applied to anything that is used by the military, including paper, towels, pens, computers in general, water, etc.

> Are you even aware, I am referencing the issue of a Nix conference hosted at a German university

I am, and? I think you missed my point?

> I linked a Wikipedia article, read it, if you're genuinely interested and not debating in bad faith.

I did. The Civil clause of some universities does sound fine ("strive to", "focused on"), but the others make a blanket statement that is very hard to take seriously. Obviously, they don't take the statement to the letter, and in fact it's hard to tell what they aren't supposed to do (if anything), unless perhaps you look at the other universities. Even then, none of those clauses say anything that can be applied to hosting a conference with military sponsorship but not to contributing to Nix.

Regardless, I don't think what you linked to is well known outside Germany. You can judge by the extent and completeness of that Wikipedia article. I'm European (EU), went to a European (EU) university and I had never heard of such a clause.

To answer to your point:

> To even think of the sponsorship as a valid idea is US centric ignorance. Outside the US people don't get the "Thank you for your service" indoctrination and are way, way more reluctant to work with the MIC.

I think you're generalizing a wee bit too much -- I'm not from the US and I think there's plenty of indoctrination to go around, and yet I don't think rejecting this sponsorship is in accordance with open source and Free Software values, philosophy and spirit. You can go read about it here -- and notice how it says several times that the point is to include everyone: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

To be honest, I think the mistake with Nixcon was not Anduril, but rather, to host the conference at a German university.

[jijijijij]

Damn you got Germany good. It's all collapsing now, mensa shoot-outs, marching bands playing on public radio, students getting lectured by ICMBs.

I was just giving an example of a wider sentiment on MIC involvement outside the US. The specifics don't matter at all. In much of Europe working for or with MIC is not widely accepted and makes many people uneasy.

To point is cultural ignorance in an international project.

[someplaceguy]

I've lived in 3 EU countries and visited and known people from many more and while it's true most people would be against most wars, I don't think most people would be against a MIC sponsorship for an open source conference.

Airbus alone employs 40,000 people in the defense sector and there are many, many more MIC companies in Europe where many people are happy to work at (for the record, I'm not one of them). Also, all European countries have a military and buy weapons, and probably all of them also manufacture some weapons or others (microstates being the exception). Some of them even have mandatory drafts, I think.

As an example, I'd be shocked if an Airbus sponsorship would ever be rejected in Europe (perhaps Germany being the exception now that I'm familiar with the Civil clause).

Honestly, you sound like someone with a heavy anti-US and anti-MIC bias (and admittedly, I'm also known to take pleasure in anti-US and anti-MIC prejudices, but my concerns don't intersect this particular scenario at all).

[jijijijij]

There is still a massive difference between gigacorp Airbus, Siemens, SpaceX, ... or whoever does defense stuff as a side hustle, and a pure defense company like Anduril or Rheinmetall to plaster their logo onto things, or recruit at events. There is no plausible deniability with these companies' intentions and product consequences.

To me at least, there is even a difference between the military and private companies profiting off war and suffering. I would rather have the Bundeswehr around than Anduril. Just because it's something of a necessary evil, doesn't mean I respect the people who seek this career, who want to engineer and sell death.

My stance on the issue is irrelevant. The devision caused in the Nix community was predictable. It was objectively an idiotic idea considering cultural and consequential differences. Even a pro-MIC person should realize this.

And let's not forget the conflict of interest of Nix's VIPs here in this particular matter, greatly shading any presumption of good-faith arguments. It's been wildly stupid.

And lastly, FYI, these sponsorships do have strings attached, especially when money matters:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/1338390/darpa-pulls-fu...