Systemd 'Fashware' Pull Request Ignites Open Source Definition Debate

A recent pull request (PR) submitted to the Systemd project has ignited a significant debate within the open-source community, challenging the foundational principles of what constitutes open source. The proposed utility, named detect-fash, aimed to identify “problematic” software and configurations. Specifically, it sought to detect installations of the web browser LadyBird, Hyprland, Omarchy Linux, and remarkably, included code to check if the system user was David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH), the creator of Ruby on Rails. The component was designed to detect the execution of a “fascist environment,” identify “fascist technology,” and effectively “extinguish fascism” by recognizing “Fashware” and returning a success code if detected. Despite being “well written and complete” according to a Red Hat employee who reviewed the 500-line code change, the PR was ultimately rejected, deemed “not suitable for Systemd.” The PR’s description framed its intent as helping “identify any malicious or undesirable activity that may interfere with the operations that System D utilities are trying to use.”

The controversy extends beyond the technical merits of the detect-fash utility, delving into the core tenets of the Open Source Definition (OSD). Critics argue that the PR, regardless of whether it was intended as a joke or a serious proposal, fundamentally violates the OSD’s principles of non-discrimination. The OSD explicitly prohibits discrimination against persons or groups and against fields of endeavor. By attempting to embed ideological screening, target specific individuals like DHH, or associate software with political ideologies, the detect-fash utility would have undermined the neutrality and universal accessibility central to open-source software. This incident reignites historical discussions within the community regarding attempts to impose usage restrictions—for instance, preventing corporations from utilizing open-source tools—and highlights the collective responsibility to safeguard the open-source ethos against subjective gatekeeping and ideological bias.