alt Hacker NewsThis is the second time people responded to a post about GrapheneOS strategy with an argument about obligations. It's hard to even explain how vastly different those issues are. I didn't say anything about GrapheneOS's obligations; I talked about strategy and tactics to serve their goals.
If you do want to talk about obligations - yes, we all have obligations to our communities, societies, etc., whether we like it or not, whether we deny it or not. GrapheneOS has obligations to the open source community, to freedom, to their users and developers, etc. Defining those obligations is very difficult and I won't try, but if none of us have those obligations then who does? There's nobody else coming to the rescue, there is no authority that will take care of it for you (like parents caring for irresponsible children) - it's just you and me.
Replies
> I talked about strategy and tactics to serve their goals
Putting their project or contributors at risk does not serve their goals. You seem to be expecting a lot from a bunch of volunteer contributors.
> I talked about strategy and tactics to serve their goals.
I am skeptical that there is any lesser step that they can take consistent with their goal of an uncompromised OS. Or that France would be satisfied with anything less than access. Security is not a side feature of GrapheneOS that they can compromise on, it's their core mission. It's like telling Frodo to see the sights in Mordor, but stay away from Mount Doom.