I could imagine that there’s some very angry and confused developers who might feel violent towards unity right now.

Not that threats are the answer, just that I could see people might feel their livelihood is threatened.

I think threats are perfectly fine when CEO’s who are completely disconnected from reality destroy your livelihood so they can get a slightly larger bonus next quarter.

There’s a big difference between “start charging money for their software in a way you disagree with” and "destroy your livelihood."

I’m gonna take you at your word that it sounds like you’re saying threatening violence against the Unity management is okay. So even in the case of genuinely abusive and damaging companies (Nestle, Shell Oil), I think changing the rules so they’re answerable to a justice framework is a way better way to go, as opposed to abandoning the justice framework and hoping nothing bad will happen. MLK and Gandhi came to this understanding when faced with a lot more evil systems than the Unity developers. Basically, there is an answer, but if the problem is that they hold the power and they’re abusing it, taking the contest in the direction of a more power-based and less justice-based dynamic is tempting but it definitely isn’t gonna get you the results you want. It’s just gonna make things worse.

That only works if there is a path already in place to do these things and a willingness to take that path. People are sick and tired of trying to go through “official” channels to fix things when it’s obvious those channels are designed in a way that completely works against them. Yes, this potentially could destroy the livelihood for some and if threatening waste of oxygen management that cares nothing for others is the only path to create change, than it’s a great time to be a vendor selling pitch forks and torches.