3 ms·

I thought that (A)GPL only requested you to redistribute source code changes. I wasn't aware that it forced you to sympathize with the ideology of the main dev

I thought that (A)GPL only requested you to redistribute source code changes. I wasn't aware that it forced you to sympathize with the ideology of the main developer, or even to care about the political inclinations or beliefs of all random contributors.

dividedbyzero 4y ago
Why would you think it does?
despera 4y ago
Oh come on it's not such a big brain moment the fact that there are more quality elements involved for projects beyond a license that someone would take in account. I'm pretty sure you can think many just by yourself but elude you at this moment for "reasons" that have exactly to do with sympathizing with the main developer or contributors.
Fnoord 4y ago
True, I mean ESR is known for being pro gun, and a lot of people here in Europe would not agree with that. However, if you don't agree with the primary developer on something as fundamental as your being, chances are you don't want to collaborate with them, do PRs, or give them feedback. On top of that, the person has caused drama, which is a sign of instability to a FOSS project (just take a look at all the drama TdR (or lets call him deraadt@) caused over the years...). Given how easy it is to obfuscate a vulnerability in code I would not want to run code programmed primarily by someone who has a peculiar world view (except in a sandbox). At least its a yellow flag to audit it well (but that is no guarantee). With regards to FOSS projects its just a time bomb till some nefarious actor (Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, etc) does something bad to a popular FOSS project. But the worries are the same when the author is unknown (TrueCrypt, for example), and some people have been paranoid about SELinux ever since. Taking above into account IMO the heads up is fair. And with all that, you're still free to make up your own mind. Nobody is telling you that you should avoid the project. They're suggesting you look into it.
mrtksn 4y ago
This is a puzzling statement, probably a straw man fallacy. The OP doesn't claim that anyone infringes any licences, just points out a relationship and political activism involvement. People are free to care or not care about it. Actually, it would be wise to care about it because the political bias might need to be held in check. People from that ideology were involved in many very illegal stuff, including terrorist attacks or coup attempts. Some people might want to distance themselves from all that even if the developer doesn't have any involvement in the illegal part of their activism.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Does the same logic apply to the lemmy developers who are openly hardline tankies and do not hide their fondness of Stalinism-Marxism? Because I'd rather just ignore all that bullshit and use their software instead of being beholden to reddit.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Why wouldn't it apply? Is anyone forced to contribute to project of developers with any kind of ideology? In the reality I live, people ignore or care about whatever they want. How does your reality look like?
    - rglullis 4y ago
      > Is anyone forced to contribute to project of developers with any kind of ideology? Not even talking about contribution. I am talking about people trying to boycott those who simply use the software. There are actual mastodon admins who block instances on the mere grounds of having deployed soapbox.
      - mrtksn 4y ago
        So? Do you think that some people are entitled of audience and their right for audience is taken away? Maybe this SJW culture went too far, I think it's time to push back against stuff like right for audience. Just let people make their own decisions. If they don't want to be involved(use or contribute) in this piece of software for whatever reason, people must be free to do so.
wut42 4y ago
And I never ever said this. You are definitely free to use it, to not care about ideology of people making software. I think it's worthwhile to note this. As I said elsewhere, my comment wasn't to tell people to avoid Soapbox (nor even to start a pointless debate like some sub-comments had) (and, heck, I even use an instance nowadays which sometimes use Soapbox; even if I personally despise the main author). The fedi is also quite political, and as others and I said, just barely using Soapbox could get you auto-blocked or auto-judged.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > just barely using Soapbox could get you auto-blocked or auto-judged. Few things scream "I don't mind totalitarianism when it is pointed at those I don't like" more than that.
  - wut42 4y ago
    I have never said anything like that, I just again, stated a fact. That i'm pro- or against this is out of the topic; but while I don't entierly agree with that, I can definitely understand the _reasons_ they are doing it. And we cannot really call this totalitarianism, we are talking about a dozens of servers in a decentralized network, not about the government of a country, or laws.
Seirdy 4y ago
Gleason is an influential member of the fediverse because of Soapbox. Soapbox adoption generally makes him more relevant and more popular. This clout amplifies his transmisiac message. It's similar to JK Rowling getting famous off the Harry Potter franchise and using that clout in a way that causes harm, prompting others to stop promoting her works and thus stop feeding her positive attention. Having read one of those books or having watched one of her movies doesn't make you a transophobe, but promoting her works gives her the means to do harm. Moreover, the majority of soapbox instances tend to be freeze peach servers that either contain or amplify other harassers. Good soapbox instances tend to be the exception rather than the norm.

dividedbyzero 4y ago

Why would you think it does?

despera 4y ago

Oh come on it's not such a big brain moment the fact that there are more quality elements involved for projects beyond a license that someone would take in account. I'm pretty sure you can think many just by yourself but elude you at this moment for "reasons" that have exactly to do with sympathizing with the main developer or contributors.

Fnoord 4y ago

True, I mean ESR is known for being pro gun, and a lot of people here in Europe would not agree with that. However, if you don't agree with the primary developer on something as fundamental as your being, chances are you don't want to collaborate with them, do PRs, or give them feedback. On top of that, the person has caused drama, which is a sign of instability to a FOSS project (just take a look at all the drama TdR (or lets call him deraadt@) caused over the years...). Given how easy it is to obfuscate a vulnerability in code I would not want to run code programmed primarily by someone who has a peculiar world view (except in a sandbox). At least its a yellow flag to audit it well (but that is no guarantee). With regards to FOSS projects its just a time bomb till some nefarious actor (Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, etc) does something bad to a popular FOSS project. But the worries are the same when the author is unknown (TrueCrypt, for example), and some people have been paranoid about SELinux ever since. Taking above into account IMO the heads up is fair. And with all that, you're still free to make up your own mind. Nobody is telling you that you should avoid the project. They're suggesting you look into it.

mrtksn 4y ago

This is a puzzling statement, probably a straw man fallacy. The OP doesn't claim that anyone infringes any licences, just points out a relationship and political activism involvement. People are free to care or not care about it. Actually, it would be wise to care about it because the political bias might need to be held in check. People from that ideology were involved in many very illegal stuff, including terrorist attacks or coup attempts. Some people might want to distance themselves from all that even if the developer doesn't have any involvement in the illegal part of their activism.

rglullis 4y ago
Does the same logic apply to the lemmy developers who are openly hardline tankies and do not hide their fondness of Stalinism-Marxism? Because I'd rather just ignore all that bullshit and use their software instead of being beholden to reddit.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Why wouldn't it apply? Is anyone forced to contribute to project of developers with any kind of ideology? In the reality I live, people ignore or care about whatever they want. How does your reality look like?
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > Is anyone forced to contribute to project of developers with any kind of ideology? Not even talking about contribution. I am talking about people trying to boycott those who simply use the software. There are actual mastodon admins who block instances on the mere grounds of having deployed soapbox.
    - mrtksn 4y ago
      So? Do you think that some people are entitled of audience and their right for audience is taken away? Maybe this SJW culture went too far, I think it's time to push back against stuff like right for audience. Just let people make their own decisions. If they don't want to be involved(use or contribute) in this piece of software for whatever reason, people must be free to do so.

wut42 4y ago

And I never ever said this. You are definitely free to use it, to not care about ideology of people making software. I think it's worthwhile to note this. As I said elsewhere, my comment wasn't to tell people to avoid Soapbox (nor even to start a pointless debate like some sub-comments had) (and, heck, I even use an instance nowadays which sometimes use Soapbox; even if I personally despise the main author). The fedi is also quite political, and as others and I said, just barely using Soapbox could get you auto-blocked or auto-judged.

rglullis 4y ago
> just barely using Soapbox could get you auto-blocked or auto-judged. Few things scream "I don't mind totalitarianism when it is pointed at those I don't like" more than that.
- wut42 4y ago
  I have never said anything like that, I just again, stated a fact. That i'm pro- or against this is out of the topic; but while I don't entierly agree with that, I can definitely understand the _reasons_ they are doing it. And we cannot really call this totalitarianism, we are talking about a dozens of servers in a decentralized network, not about the government of a country, or laws.

Seirdy 4y ago

Gleason is an influential member of the fediverse because of Soapbox. Soapbox adoption generally makes him more relevant and more popular. This clout amplifies his transmisiac message. It's similar to JK Rowling getting famous off the Harry Potter franchise and using that clout in a way that causes harm, prompting others to stop promoting her works and thus stop feeding her positive attention. Having read one of those books or having watched one of her movies doesn't make you a transophobe, but promoting her works gives her the means to do harm. Moreover, the majority of soapbox instances tend to be freeze peach servers that either contain or amplify other harassers. Good soapbox instances tend to be the exception rather than the norm.