So he temporarily sabotaged many customers to make a political point about ICE because he believes they are immoral. I’m not sure two wrongs can make a right like that.
So they stopped allowing chef to use their software.
That Chef didn’t have an alternative is entirely on Chef.
Unless of course you are saying that you believe that individuals should be required to provide it to anyone who asks?
Because the software was open source.
> to do something that person didn’t want their software to be used for.
I didn't realize Chef had to analyze every open source contributors political opinions.
> So they stopped allowing chef to use their software.
Which is against the entire idea of open source software.
Arguably, they only have to analyze their own, if it's immoral enough.
If you want to have availability guarantees you should arrange a paid contract. Otherwise you are literally demanding someone else do free work for you.
Developers ultimately have judgement over which projects they contribute to, and if they feel that more harm is coming out of their work than good, then they have every right to cease development.
Open source, compared to other development models, suffers the least from this problem in that there is no single developer that has jurisdiction over how the product is used. FOSS projects can always be forked, if need be.
Have you ever actually read a proprietary software license?