GNU Maintainer: Slave-Made Code? "YES"

On one hand, other industries, after much controversy, do in fact now vet their sources and are expected to ethically source materials. But the goalposts can always move, like the article says: "Someone’s terrorist is another one’s freedom fighter."

Almost all technology, including anything with IC chips/silicon or batteries, technically has their raw materials sourced from forced/child labor in the first place, so we could argue nobody has room to throw stones at all, but for some reason that doesn't seem to be as important an issue for people as e.g. who a Linux-focused laptop manufacturer (Framework) accepts donation money from. Why is that the line? And who gets to say where this line ever is?

On the other hand, historically tech has tried to stick to the tech, and not play judge or investigator as you say, but people will try to cancel you for that too (Ladybird Browser). People don't want to involve politics although sometimes it seems inevitable.

Thoughts?