4 ms·

Well of course, because open source is about ignoring the ability of software developers to do good in the world, their abilities to change things, so instead c

by fao_ 8y ago

Well of course, because open source is about ignoring the ability of software developers to do good in the world, their abilities to change things, so instead companies can make money off the backs of software developers who are almost always working for free in their spare time. All in the hope that a software developer might get hired to maintain a project that they thought up. The point of open source is to not be political, but that is an inane statement. Choosing to 'not be political', is itself a choice for the status quo. Choosing to 'not discriminate against any particular group, either positively or negatively' in a world where there is implicit, mostly-unspoken discrimination, is an implicit choice to continue that forward. So why should those values be something to aspire towards? The status quo is a world in which the majority of people are not being payed what they are worth, so the people doing the paying can further inflate their ridiculously large bank balances. I am probably the last person to quote MLK in common conversation, because a lot of his quotes have been misused or mispurposed to argue for something that he personally did not support. But, right now this one feels incredible pertinent: "" I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; ""

geofft 8y ago
Right, but MLK would not have identified himself as a "white moderate except ___," nor said "I like order, but also ___". His point was he had a different worldview from the white moderate, and tacking on to the white moderate would not have accomplished his goals. Open source is definitely political, but it's also a very specific political movement. There can be other political movements with other goals. The reasons that open source advocates dislike licenses with restrictions on use are not just "we don't want to be political" or "we don't want to rock the boat." Some have a moral/ethical opinion that you should not restrict use via copyright, usually that you should not be able to restrict use via copyright. Some have a pragmatic opinion that attempts to restrict use will lead to worse outcomes. The 996.ICU folks seem like they would be better served with their own movement that doesn't go by the name of "open source." We don't need to add that label to them.
est31 8y ago
> make money off the backs of software developers who are almost always working for free in their spare time. Part of open sourcing something is accepting that very thing. It's volunteer work and a gift to the commons. Open source software directly helps people who can't afford expensive licenses of proprietary software, either because they are poor in a rich country, or because they aren't rich in a poor country. So don't say that open source software doesn't do good in the world! > Choosing to 'not be political', is itself a choice for the status quo. With this argument, most activism could be seen as "choice" for the status quo because you can always spend more of your time and money with activism. Barely anyone is spending all their time and money with it, so per your argument that makes most of them support the status quo. The mere act of open sourcing something can already be seen as political action about the question of proprietary vs libre software. But that political action has limits, and I think those boundaries should be accepted. Being non-political is analogous to abstaining in an election. Abstaining is the same as supporting whoever is the stronger force in that election. So it's not supporting the status quo, but whomever is strongest currently. There's a difference between the two. Also note that activism, especially in non-democracies, often has negative consequences, onto your career, life, health, and of your entire family. Activism in democracies is dangerous as well, due to political discrimination by non government entities (which seems to be allowed in the US) as well as lone haters who resort to violence. And it's always possible that the democracy becomes totalitarian and the people in power take revenge on their prior opponents. This has happened in nazi germany as well as in russia and in other places. People shouldn't be required to ignore their own personal safety or career opportunities to fight for a political cause. Yes, people who do should be admired, but we shouldn't shame people who don't. Last but not least, a society where people are forced to be activists is a totalitarian one and one where I don't want to live in.

by fao_ 8y ago

geofft 8y ago

Right, but MLK would not have identified himself as a "white moderate except ___," nor said "I like order, but also ___". His point was he had a different worldview from the white moderate, and tacking on to the white moderate would not have accomplished his goals. Open source is definitely political, but it's also a very specific political movement. There can be other political movements with other goals. The reasons that open source advocates dislike licenses with restrictions on use are not just "we don't want to be political" or "we don't want to rock the boat." Some have a moral/ethical opinion that you should not restrict use via copyright, usually that you should not be able to restrict use via copyright. Some have a pragmatic opinion that attempts to restrict use will lead to worse outcomes. The 996.ICU folks seem like they would be better served with their own movement that doesn't go by the name of "open source." We don't need to add that label to them.

est31 8y ago

> make money off the backs of software developers who are almost always working for free in their spare time. Part of open sourcing something is accepting that very thing. It's volunteer work and a gift to the commons. Open source software directly helps people who can't afford expensive licenses of proprietary software, either because they are poor in a rich country, or because they aren't rich in a poor country. So don't say that open source software doesn't do good in the world! > Choosing to 'not be political', is itself a choice for the status quo. With this argument, most activism could be seen as "choice" for the status quo because you can always spend more of your time and money with activism. Barely anyone is spending all their time and money with it, so per your argument that makes most of them support the status quo. The mere act of open sourcing something can already be seen as political action about the question of proprietary vs libre software. But that political action has limits, and I think those boundaries should be accepted. Being non-political is analogous to abstaining in an election. Abstaining is the same as supporting whoever is the stronger force in that election. So it's not supporting the status quo, but whomever is strongest currently. There's a difference between the two. Also note that activism, especially in non-democracies, often has negative consequences, onto your career, life, health, and of your entire family. Activism in democracies is dangerous as well, due to political discrimination by non government entities (which seems to be allowed in the US) as well as lone haters who resort to violence. And it's always possible that the democracy becomes totalitarian and the people in power take revenge on their prior opponents. This has happened in nazi germany as well as in russia and in other places. People shouldn't be required to ignore their own personal safety or career opportunities to fight for a political cause. Yes, people who do should be admired, but we shouldn't shame people who don't. Last but not least, a society where people are forced to be activists is a totalitarian one and one where I don't want to live in.