I get that, and I agree with it in general, but there’s literally no company on earth that would approach open source developers with the intent to pay them to work on a closed source product, or to buy out their open source work without having an NDA in place. Hell, even if Meta just wants to pay them to do open source work to support the community, there will still likely be an NDA covering what they can say to the public about the arrangement or anything they learn from having access to internal systems.

It’s like saying “Meta has security guards at the doors to their datacenters! They must be doing something illegal in there!”

Meta is evil and is very likely doing something bad with these developers, but the NDA isn’t the smoking gun evidence of evil… It’s Meta’s history in general

I don’t know why everyone is so upset about the NDA thing… It’s such a standard business practice. Whenever I (a mid tier infra engineer at a mid sized software company) needed to talk to a vendor, get a product demo/consultation, get support on a licensed application, etc… We either sent an NDA to that company or bad one on file already with them. Nobody discusses internal processes, policies or roadmaps with an outside contact without an NDA first. It’s literally just a standard business practice.

It could be nefarious, since it’s meta afterall, but I wouldn’t be shocked if there’s thousands of people/companies who have standing NDAs with meta just so they could come on campus and demo their product to some team