While I completely abhor the invasion, I can't help but feeling that the licence (and equally important) accompanying code change - https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-eks/b... - feels like a weaponisation of open source, and I think this is a dangerous thing to do. I do think that with change of "additional terms & conditions" to "additional information", it still feels an ethically dangerous place to be.

I would not be happy if a library codifies political statements. What could be next? Conditions that state you agree to vote for/against Trump, that you disagree with homosexuality or are against transphobia. Note, I'm not accusing anyone of having those views neither am I commenting on them, they merely serve as an example of the dangers of discriminating.

Dependencies and supply chain attacks are the big thing - and while dependency scanning and pinning are an important component, but I don't think it is possible to use open source libs at scale without a certain amount of trust. I work on a platform where there are hundreds of teams and thousands of microservices. I'm now trying to think how we can assess the risk of thousands of dependencies and millions of lines of code. Without trust, the only way that's possible is to fork all libs, prevent open source and generally kill off any agility and velocity. My problem is that this weaponisation is killing off trust. It's not about sitting on the fence or taking sides in a war. It's about what open source has achieved over the last 30 years and I think that's now more at risk than before…