> No one is required to follow The Rule, to know The Rule, or even to think that The Rule is a good idea. The Founder of SQLite believes that anyone who follows The Rule will live a happier and more productive life, but individuals are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish.
As opposed to a standard contributor covenant based CoC, which is totally not religious at all.
I'm not sure the one that says this is the worst option here: (22-34)
Do not give way to anger.
Do not nurse a grudge.
Do not entertain deceit in your heart.
Do not give a false peace.
Do not forsake charity.
Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself.
Utter only truth from heart and mouth.
Do not return evil for evil.
Do no wrong to anyone, and bear patiently wrongs done to yourself.
Love your enemies.
Do not curse those who curse you, but rather bless them.
Bear persecution for justice's sake.
Be not proud.
Not defending Contributor Covenant nor SQLite's Code of Ethics, but since you're being overly sarcastic: how is Contributor Covenant anywhere in the same category of religiosity as a Code of Ethics that literally invokes Christian doctrine by name and is directly based on a Christian book?
I get that people use "religious" in hyperbolic ways but the SQLite Code of Ethics is literally religious in the original sense of the word, not some handwave-y "they're taking it very seriously and encoding value judgements some people disagree with" way.
Yeah I didn't quite get this either, personally I have no problem with the SQLite code of ethics because of its inclusion of "individuals are free to ignore or dispute this". But it does also include such lines as "Put your hope in God." and "Be in dread of hell.", which do make it an explicitly and objectively religious/Christian document, which would put it in a different category to mostly secular contributor covenants or codes of conduct in my opinion
Personally I'm fine with the Code of Ethics despite being an atheist as it explicitly doesn't apply to outside contributors and presumably the core team is fine with it (and if they aren't, that's for them to discuss internally, not for me to complain about).
Never cared about it, nor do now, neither do the thousands of major products and companies that embed it in their apps, code, etc. (from Gooogle Chrome to Apple's stuff to Adobe Lightroom to Dropbox, FOSS distros, hardware devices like routers, and countless others).
Nor does it bother contributors, to any degree that impacts this being one of the most well maintained, regularly updated, thoroughly tested and bugfixed, and stable FOSS of all time - if not the best in most of those regards (which is also the reason of its huge mission-critical adoption from the biggest names in the industry).
If this indeed has ever bothered anyone, it's still one of the most inconsequential bothers of all time...
edit: The page also contains the stronger statement wmanley quoted, so it wasn't a misleading quote as I initially assumed. I counted a total of 5 committers in the last year, so it does indeed look like SQLite does not accept outside contributions at all, even with a public domain dedication.
That page says:
> the project does not accept patches from people who have not submitted an affidavit dedicating their contribution into the public domain
which is quite different from your shortened quote. This sounds similar to the CLA many projects require for contributions.
How many outside contributions does SQLite accept in practice?
Isn't it the point of the code of conduct to put off troublesome people and to facilitate collaboration between contributors? Maybe it works as intended?
Short for "globally homogeneous", globohomo is a pejorative term for globalisation. Often used by the type of people who believe that globalism is a Jewish plot to undermine Western tradition.
Urban Dictionary is split on the issue, so either a half-witted claim about globalism enforced homogeneity of thought (read: criticism of neoliberalism) or the tragically stupid alternative "globalist homosexual agenda" (read: being asked not to be *-phobic). Either way not a super constructive point with a hint of dog whistle.
Why didn't you do five seconds of research, opened up https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html and confirmed the claim instead of accusing osmeone of lying, being a bad actor, and demanding an apology for someone else?
