3 ms·
Nearly every comment is missing his take given the title here. He's not saying everything should be open source. He's saying that the right to have an open so
by kromem 3y ago
Nearly every comment is missing his take given the title here.
He's not saying everything should be open source.
He's saying that the right to have an open source version of anything is what we should be absolutists about.
So not that every OS, or encryption, or AI model should be open - but that people should fight and stand up for the right to have access to open OSes, encryption, or AI models if produced.
Windows can exist, but shouldn't be able to prevent Linux from existing basically.
That's the absolutism. He hasn't suddenly turned into Stallman.
- drewcoo 3y ago>> a great many of the software tools used by the most powerful companies in the world are the exact same ones available to hospitals, students, and everyone else. For free. And not just to use, but to inspect, modify, extend, and redistribute. That does not say that open source is great because it copies closed source. Nor does the term "absolutism." Carmack is pushing for open source, just like the title would imply.
- kazinator 3y ago> He's not saying everything should be open source. He'd have to move to a Mastodon instance for that not to look stupid.
- zeofig 3y agowhy?
- sashimimono 3y agoThe beautiful idea of having "free/libre/opensource software" is worth nothing, if there is no code available at all.