SQLite: Code of Ethics(sqlite.org)
sqlite.org
SQLite: Code of Ethics
https://sqlite.org/codeofethics.html
28 comments
I'm going to throw the unpopular opinion in the ring: I like their statement. I like that their team is able to have common beliefs among themselves, and can share those beliefs. There used to be an internet where people could share what they believe, and if you hated it, you just ignored it.
While I am a Christian, I don't agree with 100% of this set of rules. For a small sample,
> Chastise the body.
> Recognize always that evil is your own doing, and to impute it to yourself.
> Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.
> 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."
That is not biblical (well, those could be in the Catholic bible, not 100% sure) at all, but that's fine. Now we all know where they stand, and what they find important.
While I am a Christian, I don't agree with 100% of this set of rules. For a small sample,
> Chastise the body.
> Recognize always that evil is your own doing, and to impute it to yourself.
> Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.
> 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."
That is not biblical (well, those could be in the Catholic bible, not 100% sure) at all, but that's fine. Now we all know where they stand, and what they find important.
That's pretty cool
Care to elaborate? I felt strongly the opposite. It makes me more eager to move away from SQLite. I'm very far from religious, and this seems to be very strongly suggesting atheism is synonymous with immorality.
Maybe that says more about you than about the document authors, or the document itself.
They have gone through the trouble of changing this from a Code of Conduct to a Code of Ethics, for the specific purpose of avoiding quarreling (their rule 66).
You want to move away from SQLite just because you heard some developers are religious.
I really prefer their attitude towards disagreement.
They have gone through the trouble of changing this from a Code of Conduct to a Code of Ethics, for the specific purpose of avoiding quarreling (their rule 66).
You want to move away from SQLite just because you heard some developers are religious.
I really prefer their attitude towards disagreement.
No, actually I have no issue with people being religious. I have plenty of religious friends who hail from many religions, and are very open-minded and loving towards others with different beliefs.
This "Code" isn't saying that this is what the founder believes, and that they would like others to follow it. It's making a pretty unequivocal statement that the founder (and developers) believe that this is the "better" way to live: "Anyone who follows The Rule will live a happier and more productive life"
First of all, this is really unrelated to software or the utility of sqlite. But then we have "The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability. They view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave"
Well then, this is a pretty strong statement of their intention to limit the pool of sqlite contributors to those who follow this rule.
"But sqlite is open source" you might think... but here's what they say:
> SQLite is open-source, meaning that you can make as many copies of it as you want and do whatever you want with those copies, without limitation. But SQLite is not open-contribution. In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure that the code does not become contaminated(!!) with proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept patches from unknown persons ... > In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, the project does not accept patches. If you would like to make a suggested change, and include a patch as a proof-of-concept, that would be great. However please do not be offended if we rewrite your patch from scratch."
So this is all news to me, and I think it's a pretty terrible way to run an open source project, or any project really. I wouldn't work at a company that had this rule. If the rule said "1. Only have sexual relations with people of the opposite sex, in the context of marriage" I suspect many people would wash their hands of it completely.
But really, they've done a great job with sqlite as a piece of software, so kudos to the dogmatic yet exclusive group of authors for their work and dedication. In the meantime, I would be thrilled to see another file-based relational db take its place
This "Code" isn't saying that this is what the founder believes, and that they would like others to follow it. It's making a pretty unequivocal statement that the founder (and developers) believe that this is the "better" way to live: "Anyone who follows The Rule will live a happier and more productive life"
First of all, this is really unrelated to software or the utility of sqlite. But then we have "The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability. They view The Rule as their promise to all SQLite users of how the developers are expected to behave"
Well then, this is a pretty strong statement of their intention to limit the pool of sqlite contributors to those who follow this rule.
"But sqlite is open source" you might think... but here's what they say:
> SQLite is open-source, meaning that you can make as many copies of it as you want and do whatever you want with those copies, without limitation. But SQLite is not open-contribution. In order to keep SQLite in the public domain and ensure that the code does not become contaminated(!!) with proprietary or licensed content, the project does not accept patches from unknown persons ... > In order to keep SQLite completely free and unencumbered by copyright, the project does not accept patches. If you would like to make a suggested change, and include a patch as a proof-of-concept, that would be great. However please do not be offended if we rewrite your patch from scratch."
So this is all news to me, and I think it's a pretty terrible way to run an open source project, or any project really. I wouldn't work at a company that had this rule. If the rule said "1. Only have sexual relations with people of the opposite sex, in the context of marriage" I suspect many people would wash their hands of it completely.
But really, they've done a great job with sqlite as a piece of software, so kudos to the dogmatic yet exclusive group of authors for their work and dedication. In the meantime, I would be thrilled to see another file-based relational db take its place
So, I'm reading two things, and please let me know if I'm wrong in boiling them down.
1. Someone on the internet has a different opinion than you, therefore they are wrong.
2. Someone on the internet has a closed community (ie codebase that does not accept outside contributions), therefore they are terrible leaders.
--
Don't conflate a project's opinions with their technology. Consider this; do you think the team wrote this code of ethics to offend people, or to demonstrate their opinions on certain topics? I do honestly believe that the sqlite team believes these things, and is that wrong that they choose to believe this?
1. Someone on the internet has a different opinion than you, therefore they are wrong.
2. Someone on the internet has a closed community (ie codebase that does not accept outside contributions), therefore they are terrible leaders.
--
Don't conflate a project's opinions with their technology. Consider this; do you think the team wrote this code of ethics to offend people, or to demonstrate their opinions on certain topics? I do honestly believe that the sqlite team believes these things, and is that wrong that they choose to believe this?
1. Yes, this is certainly an assumption I think everyone makes, though I wouldn't entangle my personal opinions on non-software things with my open source projects
2. Not quite; the community is closed to people who have a different opinion from them. As a software project they're publicly going on record stating that they think their opinion makes them better people, and they don't accept contributions from people outside that community (lesser people). I think in the context of religious beliefs it's a discriminatory stance. If they were an employer in Canada, they would be fined or possibly shut down.
2. Not quite; the community is closed to people who have a different opinion from them. As a software project they're publicly going on record stating that they think their opinion makes them better people, and they don't accept contributions from people outside that community (lesser people). I think in the context of religious beliefs it's a discriminatory stance. If they were an employer in Canada, they would be fined or possibly shut down.
> the community is closed to people who have a different opinion from them [...] they don't accept contributions from people outside that community (lesser people)
I didn’t read it that way at all. SQLite has been closed-contribution and maintained by a very small group of developers since it’s inception, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that religious beliefs or any supposed self-righteousness plays a part in that. In other words: the community is closed to everyone, not just “to people who have a different opinion from them“. While a closed-contribution model may be uncommon among popular open-source projects, I don’t see a problem with it (no random project on GitHub is obligated to accept my PRs).
The preamble makes it quite clear that agreeing to the code of ethics is absolutely not mandatory within the closed group of contributors to SQLite. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything discriminatory about choosing to personally pledge oneself to a specific behavioral standard without placing expectations on others.
I didn’t read it that way at all. SQLite has been closed-contribution and maintained by a very small group of developers since it’s inception, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that religious beliefs or any supposed self-righteousness plays a part in that. In other words: the community is closed to everyone, not just “to people who have a different opinion from them“. While a closed-contribution model may be uncommon among popular open-source projects, I don’t see a problem with it (no random project on GitHub is obligated to accept my PRs).
The preamble makes it quite clear that agreeing to the code of ethics is absolutely not mandatory within the closed group of contributors to SQLite. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anything discriminatory about choosing to personally pledge oneself to a specific behavioral standard without placing expectations on others.
> In other words: the community is closed to everyone, not just “to people who have a different opinion from them“.
I get that viewpoint, but respectfully, I believe differently. What does it really mean to be closed to everyone? And is it really? The source code is in Fossil, and I don't have any experience with this unfortunately, so I couldn't tell you if the author information is preserved, but presumably there is a team contributing to it, and I suspect that team hasn't been 100% the same group of people since inception.
So if a business says 'they're not hiring', and also (supposedly unrelated) that all of the current employees subscribe to this dogmatic code, and then slowly you see people added to the team, but through backchannels, really that's just a way for them to maintain their 'company culture' which, in this case happens to be tied to religious beliefs.
Like I said, I think in Canada the business wouldn't be able to get around discrimination laws by doing this. More likely they'd have to also avoid discussing their religious beliefs publicly.
You also say:
> The preamble makes it quite clear that agreeing to the code of ethics is absolutely not mandatory within the closed group of contributors to SQLite.
but I took a look again, and the closest thing I can find is:
> "individuals" are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish.
Yes, individuals can do whatever they want. But
> The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability
To me, it's written between the lines that if you want to penetrate the inner sanctum of core sqlite developers, you'd need to make a really good case for your inclusion on the team in addition to agreeing to this code.
I get that viewpoint, but respectfully, I believe differently. What does it really mean to be closed to everyone? And is it really? The source code is in Fossil, and I don't have any experience with this unfortunately, so I couldn't tell you if the author information is preserved, but presumably there is a team contributing to it, and I suspect that team hasn't been 100% the same group of people since inception.
So if a business says 'they're not hiring', and also (supposedly unrelated) that all of the current employees subscribe to this dogmatic code, and then slowly you see people added to the team, but through backchannels, really that's just a way for them to maintain their 'company culture' which, in this case happens to be tied to religious beliefs.
Like I said, I think in Canada the business wouldn't be able to get around discrimination laws by doing this. More likely they'd have to also avoid discussing their religious beliefs publicly.
You also say:
> The preamble makes it quite clear that agreeing to the code of ethics is absolutely not mandatory within the closed group of contributors to SQLite.
but I took a look again, and the closest thing I can find is:
> "individuals" are free to dispute or ignore that advice if they wish.
Yes, individuals can do whatever they want. But
> The founder of SQLite and all current developers have pledged to follow the spirit of The Rule to the best of their ability
To me, it's written between the lines that if you want to penetrate the inner sanctum of core sqlite developers, you'd need to make a really good case for your inclusion on the team in addition to agreeing to this code.
> 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.
It makes me more eager to move away from SQLite.
Why?
On another page I find: SQLite Is Public Domain
All of the code and documentation in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors. All code authors, and representatives of the companies they work for, have signed affidavits dedicating their contributions to the public domain https://sqlite.org/copyright.html
Given that I'm free to do absolutely whatever I want with the code, why should I be seriously concerned about their code of ethics?
Why?
On another page I find: SQLite Is Public Domain
All of the code and documentation in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors. All code authors, and representatives of the companies they work for, have signed affidavits dedicating their contributions to the public domain https://sqlite.org/copyright.html
Given that I'm free to do absolutely whatever I want with the code, why should I be seriously concerned about their code of ethics?
This would not affect my decicion to use SQLite, which is still my choice for quick database setups.
Not saying that they did it here, but the notion that atheism is synonymous with immorality would be absurd. It is usually quite the opposite, most orthodox religion leads to immorality due to the simple fact that it applies codes that might maybe have made sense centuries or millenia ago to modern day societies.
[deleted]
delian66(2)
Some is nice, up until the gratuitous references to christian religion. Lots of asceticism and charity, which is very not social by nature. Importantly there is almost nothing on evilness of power structures (how surprising). My personal take on it:
1. snip (cult)
2. Then, love your neighbor as yourself.
3. Do not murder.
4. snip (patriarchy)
5. Do not steal. [meh: unconditional private property is immoral quite often]
6. Do not covet.
7. Do not bear false witness.
8. Honor all people.
9. Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself.
10. snip (cult)
11. snip (cult)
12. Do not become attached to pleasures. [meh: asceticism]
13. Love fasting. [meh: asceticism]
14. Relieve the poor. [meh: charity, what made them poor?]
15. Clothe the naked. [meh: charity]
16. Visit the sick. [meh: charity]
17. Bury the dead. [meh: charity]
18. Be a help in times of trouble.
19. Console the sorrowing.
20. Be a stranger to the world's ways. [meh: definitely not in the way intended]
21. snip (cult)
22. Do not give way to anger.
23. Do not nurse a grudge.
24. Do not entertain deceit in your heart.
25. Do not give a false peace.
26. Do not forsake charity.
27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself.
28. Utter only truth from heart and mouth.
29. Do not return evil for evil.
30. Do no wrong to anyone, and bear patiently wrongs done to yourself.
31. Love your enemies.
32. Do not curse those who curse you, but rather bless them.
33. Bear persecution for justice's sake. [meh: martyr and asceticism]
34. Be not proud.
35. Be not addicted to wine. [meh: (social) disease]
36. Be not a great eater. [meh: asceticism]
37. Be not drowsy.
38. Be not lazy.
39. Be not a grumbler.
40. Be not a detractor.
41. snip (cult)
42. snip (cult)
43. Recognize always that evil is your own doing, and to impute it to yourself.
44. snip (cult)
45. snip (cult)
46. snip (cult)
47. Keep death daily before your eyes.
48. Keep constant guard over the actions of your life.
49. snip (cult)
50. snip (cult)
51. snip (cult)
52. snip (cult)
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.
56. snip (cult)
57. snip (cult)
58. snip (cult)
59. snip (chastity)
60. snip (authority)
61. snip (cult)
62. snip (cult)
63. snip (chastity)
64. Hate no one.
65. Be not jealous, nor harbor envy.
66. Do not love quarreling.
67. Shun arrogance.
68. Respect your seniors. [meh: conservatism, authority]
69. Love your juniors.
70. snip (cult)
71. Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets.
72. snip (cult)
You seem to feel that charity is to be deprecated because it excuses unjust social structures. I think this is a mistake and that charity often challenges such injustices.
I do! I understand your position but i believe it's illusory. I would define charity by it's free-willingness and the fact it's done by the people of means towards the more helpless (i believe helping among your peers is self-help/solidarity and not charity). There is an inherant distance between the giver/given: the giver has profited (indirectly, as always!) from some structures, which have negatively affected the given (global north gives to global south, rich gives to poor, citizen gives to immigrant, etc). Charity may be necessary in an inegalitarian society, but as such i don't include it in my moral ideals, which themselves already mandate to eliminate such structures.
On a more practical level, charity is a plaster that contributes to the acceptability of domination: far-from-home wars are acceptable because we have NGOs, but the reason we are implicated far-from-home is because we have strategical interests there. Humanitarians orgs object to the means of domination, but they don't object the actual relationship. Another thing is that the individual and free-willing decision means that you will resort to unconsious decision making to apply it or not, since you won't be able individually to always apply it. Think about it: which kind of beggars do you actually (not) give to? mothers with children? drunk? young? proactives/prostrated? And as groups: towards which ones does the public opinion orient NGOs? There are always some patterns, it's always brutal and it always transpires the exact biases we are otherwise trying to fight.
EDIT: For a bit more legibility i should've added that the concept that replaces charity for me is solidarity. And given that moral guidelines as above are never fully applicable, in a situation of charity i try to act with solidarity in mind. In solidarity the difference in power inside some imperfect structure may still be present, but it is not the core. In fact you give not because the recipient has less means, but because you are peers in some other sense. Solidarity could also flow in the opposite direction since it's more than just a transaction.
On a more practical level, charity is a plaster that contributes to the acceptability of domination: far-from-home wars are acceptable because we have NGOs, but the reason we are implicated far-from-home is because we have strategical interests there. Humanitarians orgs object to the means of domination, but they don't object the actual relationship. Another thing is that the individual and free-willing decision means that you will resort to unconsious decision making to apply it or not, since you won't be able individually to always apply it. Think about it: which kind of beggars do you actually (not) give to? mothers with children? drunk? young? proactives/prostrated? And as groups: towards which ones does the public opinion orient NGOs? There are always some patterns, it's always brutal and it always transpires the exact biases we are otherwise trying to fight.
EDIT: For a bit more legibility i should've added that the concept that replaces charity for me is solidarity. And given that moral guidelines as above are never fully applicable, in a situation of charity i try to act with solidarity in mind. In solidarity the difference in power inside some imperfect structure may still be present, but it is not the core. In fact you give not because the recipient has less means, but because you are peers in some other sense. Solidarity could also flow in the opposite direction since it's more than just a transaction.
Ok, I guess I think of charity as an expression of solidarity, rather than an alternative.
"Importantly there is almost nothing on evilness of power structures (how surprising)." Well of course not. You snipped out those parts!
Why is it acceptable to refer to exactly only one of the world's major religions as a "cult?"
> This document was [...] created for the purpose of filling in a box on "supplier registration" forms submitted to the SQLite developers by some clients.
> [The developers of SQLite] have pledged to govern their interactions [...] in accordance with the "instruments of good works" from chapter 4 of The Rule of St. Benedict [...] This code of ethics has proven its mettle in thousands of diverse communities for over 1,500 years, and has served as a baseline for many civil law codes since the time of Charlemagne.
Of course, there’s a link to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Saint_Benedict
> The Rule of Saint Benedict (Latin: Regula Sancti Benedicti) is a book of precepts written [...] for monks living communally under the authority of an abbot.
The entirety of section 3 is literally a reproduction of chapter 4 of The Rule of Saint Benedict. Compare to https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50040/50040-h/50040-h.htm#ch...
The explicit purpose of the document is further clarified in the third paragraph.
> This document continues to be used for its original purpose - providing a reference to fill in the "code of conduct" box on supplier registration forms.