4 ms·

It would be really funny if at least one of the following would happen: - the companies on the list would band together and fork lerna - one of the projects t

by voidr 8y ago

It would be really funny if at least one of the following would happen: - the companies on the list would band together and fork lerna - one of the projects that lerna depends on would tell them that they are no longer welcome to use their code because they hold the opposite belief - the lerna community to implode because maybe not all the 169 contributors hold the same political position Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy.

exogen 8y ago
Counterpoint: is Stallman not an activist, one who many of the same people panning this license change would claim to support? > Members of the free software movement believe that all users of software should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Many of them hold that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms and that these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each other, and to have control over their computers. Choosing an open source license itself has political implications and moral reasoning behind it, at least historically. People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed. It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.
- voidr 8y ago
  The project uses the MIT license, which is Open Source not Copyleft, it has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of Stallman, it uses a license that Stallman does not endorse. There are also many examples like the Linux kernel that do use a GNU license yet don't buy into Stallman's belief system. > It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance. How is me making my code public to anyone regardless of beliefs a political act? What is political in your mind? > People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed. You would need to prove your claim that "politics was already in software" before you get to call everyone who disagrees with you "uninformed". It's also not nice to attack the people making the arguments instead of attacking their arguments.
  - exogen 8y ago
    My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem. This is not new. Whenever someone posts a link about Emacs do you see people saying "it would be hilarious if someone forked this and banned Stallman from using their software"?
    - voidr 8y ago
      I used the word politics, I was not talking about ideology or morality, I was referring to politics specifically. > My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem. I don't recall saying that we never had ideologically or morally motivated licenses, best example is JSLint license, which prohibits you from using the software for "evil". > This is not new. You are refuting something I have never claimed. This was my main point: "Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy." If you want to debate it, I would appreciate if you could stick to what I actually wrote without changing its original meaning.
      - exogen 8y ago
        Because if you read the post, the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds, that are only incidentally political to folks who choose to reduce it to that (like you did). Specific immoral actions are named, not political ideologies. The change is not to protest “ICE under conservative leadership.” It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).
        voidr 8y ago
        I think we can agree to disagree on this one: I read the article a second time and I still think it's a political move. > the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds To me it looks like he is trying to indirectly force the government to do something he wants. If it would be that clearly immoral, then surely one of the higher courts would have had an opinion on it, unless you are willing to make the argument that he is more qualified than a court. > It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion We can continue this thread forever, let's just agree to end it and move on.
cazum 8y ago
>Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy. This is just so obviously absurd, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I need have to assume that you and I must have functionally different definitions of what "political" means All software licenses and ToS are political. The GPLs clause about upholding the essential freedoms is political. Enforcing age restrictions on porn websites is politics. You can't really escape it. In a plutocracy (the system in the United states) laws are created by those with power (corporations and their lobbyists). If citizens hold any potential power over these corporations to uphold the will of the people, it should be their civic duty to flex on the nerds throwing children in torture prisons. If your main objection to this is that it might split the community of an open source project, might I remind you that this software is being used by the tyrants throwing children into torture prisons and tearing apart families for ever. This is worth getting into some OSS politics over.
village-idiot 8y ago
The idea that this is uniquely political in a way that open source licenses aren't is just laughable.

by voidr 8y ago

exogen 8y ago

Counterpoint: is Stallman not an activist, one who many of the same people panning this license change would claim to support? > Members of the free software movement believe that all users of software should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Many of them hold that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms and that these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each other, and to have control over their computers. Choosing an open source license itself has political implications and moral reasoning behind it, at least historically. People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed. It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance.

voidr 8y ago
The project uses the MIT license, which is Open Source not Copyleft, it has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of Stallman, it uses a license that Stallman does not endorse. There are also many examples like the Linux kernel that do use a GNU license yet don't buy into Stallman's belief system. > It was already there, you just happened to perceive it as a neutral stance. How is me making my code public to anyone regardless of beliefs a political act? What is political in your mind? > People complaining about getting politics and morality "into software" honestly just look uninformed. You would need to prove your claim that "politics was already in software" before you get to call everyone who disagrees with you "uninformed". It's also not nice to attack the people making the arguments instead of attacking their arguments.
- exogen 8y ago
  My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem. This is not new. Whenever someone posts a link about Emacs do you see people saying "it would be hilarious if someone forked this and banned Stallman from using their software"?
  - voidr 8y ago
    I used the word politics, I was not talking about ideology or morality, I was referring to politics specifically. > My point was that ideologically and morally motivated software licenses are already well established in the software ecosystem. I don't recall saying that we never had ideologically or morally motivated licenses, best example is JSLint license, which prohibits you from using the software for "evil". > This is not new. You are refuting something I have never claimed. This was my main point: "Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy." If you want to debate it, I would appreciate if you could stick to what I actually wrote without changing its original meaning.
    - exogen 8y ago
      Because if you read the post, the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds, that are only incidentally political to folks who choose to reduce it to that (like you did). Specific immoral actions are named, not political ideologies. The change is not to protest “ICE under conservative leadership.” It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).
      - voidr 8y ago
        I think we can agree to disagree on this one: I read the article a second time and I still think it's a political move. > the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds To me it looks like he is trying to indirectly force the government to do something he wants. If it would be that clearly immoral, then surely one of the higher courts would have had an opinion on it, unless you are willing to make the argument that he is more qualified than a court. > It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion We can continue this thread forever, let's just agree to end it and move on.

cazum 8y ago

>Mixing software with politics never ends well in a democracy. This is just so obviously absurd, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt, I need have to assume that you and I must have functionally different definitions of what "political" means All software licenses and ToS are political. The GPLs clause about upholding the essential freedoms is political. Enforcing age restrictions on porn websites is politics. You can't really escape it. In a plutocracy (the system in the United states) laws are created by those with power (corporations and their lobbyists). If citizens hold any potential power over these corporations to uphold the will of the people, it should be their civic duty to flex on the nerds throwing children in torture prisons. If your main objection to this is that it might split the community of an open source project, might I remind you that this software is being used by the tyrants throwing children into torture prisons and tearing apart families for ever. This is worth getting into some OSS politics over.

village-idiot 8y ago

The idea that this is uniquely political in a way that open source licenses aren't is just laughable.