3 ms·

I think politics will always be a big part of open source, as the nature of open source development is inherently at odds with corporatism and control. It's pa

by devmor 1y ago

I think politics will always be a big part of open source, as the nature of open source development is inherently at odds with corporatism and control. It's particularly the reactionary stuff that concerns me when it comes to projects like this. When someone's motivation is tied to short-lived movements of social energy like that, I don't trust them to have a long term vision or investment in a project.

timewizard 1y ago
> short-lived movements of social energy It's hard to imagine an energy that's apparently existed for 12 years and still going being described as "short-lived." Perhaps it's really just unfamiliar and that's why it seems so concerning?
- devmor 1y ago
  I don’t recall anyone ranting about “DEI” 12 years ago. I do recall the same rants about 3 or 4 other terms that ultimately resolve to “people that aren’t me are allowed to do things”, though.
  - timewizard 1y ago
    > I don’t recall anyone ranting about “DEI” 12 years ago. Do you typically read the types of publications where that was likely to occur? > I do recall the same rants about 3 or 4 other terms that ultimately resolve to “people that aren’t me are allowed to do things”, though. Or perhaps you've just read second hand accounts of the phenomenon without actually confronting it directly? Which is what I presume given that you've come to such a self serving conclusion about it.
Lammy 1y ago
> the nature of open source development is inherently at odds with corporatism No, you're thinking of “Free Software” — “Open Source” was explicitly pro-corporate from the moment the term was coined. OSI themselves will tell you that “open source” as we know it was a product of AOL's desire to get people to work for them for free: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history “The [February 3rd, 1998] conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label ‘free software.’”

by devmor 1y ago

timewizard 1y ago

> short-lived movements of social energy It's hard to imagine an energy that's apparently existed for 12 years and still going being described as "short-lived." Perhaps it's really just unfamiliar and that's why it seems so concerning?

devmor 1y ago
I don’t recall anyone ranting about “DEI” 12 years ago. I do recall the same rants about 3 or 4 other terms that ultimately resolve to “people that aren’t me are allowed to do things”, though.
- timewizard 1y ago
  > I don’t recall anyone ranting about “DEI” 12 years ago. Do you typically read the types of publications where that was likely to occur? > I do recall the same rants about 3 or 4 other terms that ultimately resolve to “people that aren’t me are allowed to do things”, though. Or perhaps you've just read second hand accounts of the phenomenon without actually confronting it directly? Which is what I presume given that you've come to such a self serving conclusion about it.

Lammy 1y ago

> the nature of open source development is inherently at odds with corporatism No, you're thinking of “Free Software” — “Open Source” was explicitly pro-corporate from the moment the term was coined. OSI themselves will tell you that “open source” as we know it was a product of AOL's desire to get people to work for them for free: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history “The [February 3rd, 1998] conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label ‘free software.’”