You seem to have put a similar question before. Maybe the subsequent answer was not satisfactory enough. I will do my best to answer this lingering question. So, let’s jump right to it. Here’s my notes on what nix-captured could look like, with some possible outcomes (replace placeholder with your preferred contractor):
1) Influence on Project Direction
An {SomeMC}-aligned Steering Committee would be sympathetic to {SomeMC}'s specific concerns. {SomeMC}'s influence on the project could be felt through direct financial dependency too. Any of these two alone would be bad enough, the two combined would be disatrous. Let’s likewise imagine what would happen if moderation of public forums got overwhelmingly favourable or ‘neutral’ towards military contractors in general. That would translate into suppressing posts prejudicial to {SomeMC}. 'Should we accept {SomeMC}‘s donations’, 'should {SomeMC}‘s sponsorship for this year’s event be accepted?’, or 'should we implement an experimental feature even it violates the RFC process, just because we can, since it happens to benefit {SomeMC}‘s particular workflow and requirements?’ Just three examples of controversial matters that would become banal with an {SomeMC}-aligned Steering Committee, a financially dependent project, all made easier by a neutered community.
2) “Open Source Washing” and Reputation
With any such stranglehold over the project, it would become easier to implement sponsorship schemes without pushback and other sorts of advertisement such as recruitment campaigns within the project’s various channels of communication. Sponsorship of public events is arguably key to {SomeMC} as it would make their presence trivial. Were that to happen regularly, it would likely change the project’s culture too. It’s not unreasonable to think that it would help improve their public image as well, to appear more collaborative, to create a façade of openness while the core business model remains centered on proprietary, secretive products (due to security restrictions, see below). These products are specifically designed to kill. Trivializing who makes them contributes to the normalization of violence and can breed moral relativism (‘we are the good guys’, ‘wars must be fought after all’, ‘collateral damage’, and so on). Needless to say, this would all come at a loss for Nix’s own reputation.
3) Impact on Independent Developers and Sustainability
{SomeMC} benefits from a large pool of maintainers doing unpaid work. Unless you have a vested interest in {SomeMC}, you are unwintingly assuring the reproducibility and reliability of {SomeMC}'s systems. Well, but isn’t that true for anyone using and contributing to Nix, including other organizations as well? Yes and no. Independent developers and smaller companies may find it hard to compete with the resources {SomeMC} has (enough at least to seduce influencial community members with six-figure salaries or sub-contracts). As it has been pointed out elsewhere, {SomeMC} directly and indirectly profits from the experience and expertise of individuals with critical knowledge of the project. How come? By scooping these individuals and redirecting their efforts to work on closed, classified systems. If you scoop enough people, you get a hold on the project through its technical aspects too. Example, {SomeMC} or a sub-contractor forces a standard through its founder (a very influential person within the community) and everyone eventually has to use it because there are no alternatives. You have effectively sucked all the oxygen. In other words, the expertise walks out of the community and into military applications.
4) Community Fragmentation
Let’s assume that community fragmentation is already here. Long-time contributors have expressed their intent to leave Nix, some have already left, while organizations that use and contribute feel the urge to find or forge ethical alternatives. Core contributors start looking at Nix on a less than favorable way and leave too. Newcomers who are just daily-driving NixOS may leave even before starting to contribute. The fact is that {SomeMC} is everywhere at this point, from public forums to governance, and this overbearing presence starts eating at Nix’s reputation, with unintended consequences such as loss of critical mass and attractiveness. (Option A) The damage is done. {SomeMC} turned out to be an existential threat indeed. All we can do now is to look back at the internal strife over {SomeMC}'s overbearing presence as telltale, and the outcome of these conflicts as textbook MIC capture of open source: extracting value, influencing governance, and redirecting community-developed expertise toward weapons systems while hiding behind ‘it’s just technical work’ rhetoric. (Option B) The internal backlash from the community is so severe that Nix subsequently implements guiding principles and other measures that specifically forbid its code to be used in weapons systems.
Let’s not forget that Anduril is a contractor for the DoD. It won a contract worth $642 million recently with the U.S. Marine Corps for anti-drone technology and a $250 million deal to provide Roadrunner-M interceptors and Pulsar electronic warfare systems. It also holds an indefinite delivery contract worth approximately $1 billion with SOCOM for counter-drone systems integration. As such, its products abide to Classification and Security Restrictions. In other words, if seeing Nix implemented within the context of weapons systems isn’t problematic for you, then let’s be coherent and demand Anduril to open up their proprietary systems. Wait, but that’s an impossibility isn’t it? They can’t, even if they wanted to. They do tap this wonderful well of continuous free labor that is software with permissible licenses. Not so fast! They give back! Look at the great work done in jetpack-nixos (which powers their autonomous systems) and the fixes they share for ‘free’. Well, these are at very best dual purpose (open and classified). Also, the community bears maintenance and reputation costs while profits accrue to Andueil.
I’m assuming that you went through the remaining of my previous post. Since you singled out only a small part, you agree with everything else, I reckon? I would love to hear your thoughts about the cost-efficiency rational, specifically against the backdrop of Anduril’s eagerness to donate and sponsor (events), advertise (jobs) in community boards, and last but not the least, the happy coincidence of having employees consistently run for the SC. Does this sound like a takeover (capture) to you? If not, what would a takover look like in this context?
Vote Boring Nix!