Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @Khrys@mamot.fr (French speaking)
The gist of the issue raised by OP is that framework sponsors and promotes projects lead by known toxic and racists people (DHH among them).
I agree with the point made by the OP :
The “big tent” argument works fine if everyone plays by some basic civil rules of understanding. Stuff like code of conducts, moderation, anti-racism, surely those things we agree on? A big tent won’t work if you let in people that want to exterminate the others.
I’m disappointed in framework’s answer so far
I get what you’re saying here and mostly agree, but just want to point out that you are transferring a resource - your labour. So it is a bit more nuanced than this.
100% agreed. Just accepting business from an “out and proud” fascist, even if the task you were doing for them was community service, could be normalizing their “brand” enough that it’s not worth doing. Selling ad space/time is also very questionable; tho, you might offset that with bumpers that let people know you what you actually think of the persons that bought the ad. Nuance is the rule, and two people that agree on moral principles might still do the moral calculus for any particular trade differently.
But, I don’t think we need to (e.g.) add field of endeavor restrictions to our software licenses just to deny bad actors the same access we give to all other users/distributors universally. I don’t think morally repugnant persons should be left out of food or housing programs or UBI. The fact that morally disagreeable people can buy a Framework is totally immaterial. The fact that among all the (nigh innumerable) software projects that Framework uses, they choose to directly support one (or more) where the people taking control of those resources are morally disagreable is a concern.