It's ultimately actions that have moral value, and sponsoring projects that do good is a good thing regardless if it's Hannibal Lecter or Mother Theresa that does it. It's a very strange idea that we should try to prevent bad people from doing good deeds. If anything we should encourage and applaud such breaks in character.

What Eron does is ultimately a form of wealth redistribution. Money is flowing from the pockets of a rich guy into the pockets of open source developers who are not independently wealthy. Unless wealth redistribution is only a good thing when money is taken by force, and not given willingly? That doesn't ring true.

Reputation in this game hinges on your ability to get things done. Money is above all what enables that. There is nothing noble or reputable about turning down funding, going broke, and getting nothing of consequence done.

So, you'd accept money from any source, regardless of how reprehensible, as long as you got paid? Do you take payment in melted down gold fillings?

See, this is why you shouldn't read Ayn Rand books, or at least take them seriously.

I can see this is an argument made in bad faith, as I simply don't see any other way a statement made in the context of not looking too closely at the politics of donors has turned into the accusations you are making now.

But still, I happen to quite enjoy pointless sophistry and I am no stranger to hyperbolic comparisons, so: Wouldn't the logical conclusion of your line of argument be that criminals and reprehensible individuals should be tax exempt, in order to avoid making the government evil by association?

It's not an advert made in bad faith. It's a simple question.

Where do you draw the line? Whose money would you *not* take?