The CEO of Chef responded to this with a blog post: https://blog.chef.io/2019/09/19/chefs-position-on-customer-e...
Ironically it’s hosted on github owned by Microsoft which certainly works with ICE.
The cited contract is with C & C INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS & CONSULTANTS, INC. who purchased $95k of Chef licenses.
C & C INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS & CONSULTANTS, INC. is listed in the contract with these business types:
- Woman Owned Business
- Women Owned Small Business
- Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business
- Minority Owned Business
- Black American Owned Business
- Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt
- For Profit Organization
- DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
- Small Disadvantaged Business
- 8a Program Participant
Am I missing something? It looks like a generic procurement /federal contractor company entered the contract, and not Chef.
That’s like ICE buying Cisco switches from a 3rd party and getting mad at Cisco isn’t it?
Yes, let's get mad at the people enforcing the laws instead of the people who write the laws.
Then, we can turn off our code, make a big announcement, and feel good about ourselves without making any meaningful effort to actually help.
What. A. Great. Plan.
Best context I could find https://twitter.com/sethvargo/status/1174451060263530502?s=2...
Related article https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/20/chef_roasted_for_ic...
Wtf is chef...
What is the contract about? Can't seem to find any details regarding this.
> I apologize for the disruption to your workflow. I will be happy to restore the old repository and gem versions if Chef cancels their contract with the agency.
Great, take something out on me because of your personal politics!
I, for one, look forward to a future of navigating politicized open-source constraints of each creator.
And of course, the creator of Chef-Sugar works for Google.
Edit: Here's a mirror: https://gitlab.openminds.be/mirror/chef-sugar/-/branches
Edit: Appears Chef itself has taken over: https://github.com/chef/chef-sugar
The best part of this debacle is the author is still getting a paycheck from Google.
Can someone explain what the guy's action accomplished? If you yank your code from the internet, and people have backups of it, and it was under the Apache license, it seems to me that people can just restore the code and keep working with it as if nothing happened. The license is perpetual, no? And that's not just a technicality - if FOSS licenses were revocable by the author at any time, only idiots would use FOSS in their business...