Regardless of my own view on these ethics, the quality of SQLite is for me a testament to the usefulness of truthfully adhering to a (sub)set of noble precepts.
One could probably argue that, if interpreted in a certain way, most of these laws/rules could be good. Even the god praising could be seen positively if one subtly transforms "god" into something like "that which is good," as many secular philosophers have done.
However, this rule cannot be shown to be universally good, regardless of interpretation:
"Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you, even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, 'Do what they say, but not what they do.'"
It’s just not logical or empirically coherent. We could deconstruct this stupidity extensively, but it would not fit within the margin of this thread.
I believe it's adapted from the Rule of Saint Benedict[0] so regardless of your own objections to its practicality, communities of monks have been living by more-or-less these rules for centuries.
52. Guard your tongue against evil and depraved speech.
53. Do not love much talking.
54. Speak no useless words or words that move to laughter.
55. Do not love much or boisterous laughter.
The people with commit bits to SQLite are a known, fixed, small set of individuals, all Christians. They decided to dispense with the usual Contributor Covenant derived code of conduct and adopt their own based on their shared value system. Unfortunately it doesn't actually meet the requirements for an open source code of conduct.
I would have thought its up to each project to decide on their requirements. There is no central authority that decides how to run an open source project.
Regardless of my own view on these ethics, the quality of SQLite is for me a testament to the usefulness of truthfully adhering to a (sub)set of noble precepts.
One could probably argue that, if interpreted in a certain way, most of these laws/rules could be good. Even the god praising could be seen positively if one subtly transforms "god" into something like "that which is good," as many secular philosophers have done.
However, this rule cannot be shown to be universally good, regardless of interpretation:
"Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you, even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, 'Do what they say, but not what they do.'"
It’s just not logical or empirically coherent. We could deconstruct this stupidity extensively, but it would not fit within the margin of this thread.
I believe it's adapted from the Rule of Saint Benedict[0] so regardless of your own objections to its practicality, communities of monks have been living by more-or-less these rules for centuries.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Saint_Benedict
After so many variations of “don’t be evil” (but when it suits us we’ll just let that go) - I’m indifferent to these kinds of ethics statements.
excuse me, what
The people with commit bits to SQLite are a known, fixed, small set of individuals, all Christians. They decided to dispense with the usual Contributor Covenant derived code of conduct and adopt their own based on their shared value system. Unfortunately it doesn't actually meet the requirements for an open source code of conduct.
Whose requirements? for a code of conduct?
I would have thought its up to each project to decide on their requirements. There is no central authority that decides how to run an open source project.
Uhhh, wasn't April 1st like a month and a half ago?
EDIT: Nevermind. Seems like this nonsense has been on their website since at least October 2018 (https://web.archive.org/web/20181024184950/https://sqlite.or...). How off putting.
I could not disagree with you harder but I don't think you should be downvoted for a negative reaction like this.