There is no ethics complication. That is an imaginary problem imagined by those who wish to force their politics on others. Open source should have no politics left or right.
> do you not think open source/free software is about the ethics?
It's not about trying to interfere with projects because you don't like the author's beliefs.
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
This includes persons and fields that the author considers harmful or distasteful. And forking and redistributing are core rights granted by the license.
Same thing with XLibre.
There are, apparently, people out there who think that their decision to use something that was provided et gratis et libre should depend on the beliefs of the thing's creator, as if doing so should somehow endorse those beliefs or cause them to rub off on the user. I can't understand this line of thought, however. Quite frankly I don't think that even applies to paid proprietary software. My moral intuition doesn't allow for that kind of transfer of guilt, which seems to be what people mean nowadays when they talk about "complicity".
Shouldn't the "no discrimination" part also apply to the community?
How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS? If a specific maintainer in an otherwise friendly community refuses to merge pull requests from developers with a certain skin color, how should the community handle that?
If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS, or are they suddenly "needlessly introducing politics" and "distracting from development"? If the latter, why would the actions of that one toxic maintainer not fall under the same?
If you notice that your community is rapidly losing core members because they keep getting insulted by that one toxic maintainer, what do you propose one should do? Do you take action, or do you let the project die?
> How would you feel about a project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted - is that still in the spirit of F/LOSS?
No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
> If the other maintainers fork the project and continue without that one toxic maintainer, are they following the spirit of F/LOSS
To have this argument requires accepting your framing around "toxic maintainers" which is probably not very productive. But of course forking projects to do your own thing is entirely in the spirit.
Regardless, though, that is not what people are objecting to. For example, an XLibre project wiki was defaced with disparaging comments, including by Jordan Petridis (deeply involved with both GNOME and Xorg) (https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/issues/346#issuecomment-...). This was highly unprofessional and XLibre should not have to deal with it regardless of what you think about the politics of anyone involved.
> No, but this is irrelevant to any of the currently discussed situations.
It's somehow always relevant, because they all pretend to be speaking for black people, or that their situation is exactly as if they were black people. It's unbelievably grating to actual black people. And when black people say it to them, how they feel about actual black people comes out instantly. You see, we're symbols. We represent unfair suffering.
Just like their parents who were trying to be rappers, their grandparents were trying to be "white n-----s" (because having to go to Vietnam made them black, you see), and their great-grandparents were talking in jazz talk (like Biden.) It did nothing for black people.
> It's somehow always relevant, because they all pretend to be speaking for black people, or that their situation is exactly as if they were black people.
What does that have to do with the fancifully hypothetical "project with an official policy that pull requests from people with a certain skin color will not be accepted"?
I legitimately can't understand what you're railing against. Who are "they" in this sentence? Why should I consider that "they" are doing what you describe? Give concrete examples, please.
Every proverb can be justified: in this case "looking a gift horse in the mouth."
The guy's giving away tons of work freely, and people are whining about his views. Instead of complaining about the free download, maybe they should stop paying for his real products? (But that won't happen because they haven't bought anything off him.)
Absolutely not. DHH is someone I will never support, and I like knowing what projects he works on so that I can avoid them. Everything is political, whether we like it or not. Especially OSS.
His views are not just differences in tax policy, I find them grotesque, and I am glad people are aware of who is behind Omarchy and Hyprland so they can make informed decisions about whether to use them or not.
why is Hyprland being thrown in next to Omarchy? They're completely different levels of bad. The lead dev of Hyprland is in trouble for something minor his unpaid discord mod did and he has apologized years ago.
They're automatically a piece of shit too. Their software projects are also banned. Any forges hosting their software: be prepared to be @'d in unkind tweets. Any CPU executing such software is by extension also a bigot.
You might want to pick up a history book because it's kind of just a matter of fact at this point. The only remaining question is whether you think it's a good thing or not.
“My opinions are not opinions — these are facts, and those who disagree are either stupid, or evil, or both. In your case, I’m going to, in good faith, assume ignorance.”
I actually read a lot of history books, but I’m not limiting myself to WW2 material. I can see how someone who only reads about that could assume that WW2 is the only thing that happened — but also the only thing that is happening, and the only thing that could ever happen. For these, it’s always 1939 somewhere, and the only question that remains is where.
Would you mind explaining why you think it is subjectively wrong to call the MAGA movement fascist? There's a definition of fascism in this thread which is my working definition. Could you read it and provide your perspective on why you think it does not apply in this case? Or perhaps you'd be willing to explain why you think it is a false definition?
The reason I ask is that, by that definition, it seems rather obvious that it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that "US politics has been pretty fascist lately" but you seem to believe it's the other way around.
You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now. I am asserting that the similarities exist as a plain matter of fact. Fascism didn't exist at other times in history, so I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods, nor do I see how it refutes my assertion.
> You are taking issue with the claim that US politics are "fascist" right now.
I never said I take issue with that claim, nor that I agree with it, nor that I disagree with it. I just pointed out that there are two groups of people: those who agree with it and those who don't; for the latter group, reading the article that starts by stating that claim is going to be a waste of their time, as the article is built upon that foundation.
> I don't see the point in bringing up other time periods
You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.
> You must be then using history the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support rather than illumination.
Why would I be interested in other time periods when talking about the similarities between our time, and a phenomenon that did not exist in those other time periods?
If I state that someone on the street looks like Bill Murray, would you pull up pictures of John Cleese on your phone to refute my claim?
That's what I've addressed already: you're not interested in history as a journey of discovery which is taken in order to broaden your horizons -- you're only interested in it as a way to support your pre-existing opinions. Anything that can't support your pre-existing opinions is of no use to you.
It's as if the people in the antebellum South were only reading history books that proved to them how Blacks are inferior, while skipping over books on topics like Roman Empire or early Muslim empires (that could actually prove to them that some of very capable emperors/caliphs were actually Black.) They had no use for that information as it couldn't support their chattel slavery system.
This is an undeniable fact about American politics. I was never happy with the 14-layer bean dip definitions floating around (they seem to also try to include the definition of "authoritarian") but this one is reasonably concise and accurate to the ideologies of historically fascist movements.
The bar of "populist palingenetic ultranationalism" is fairly objective, and seems to make it clear that this is the ideology behind the "Make America Great Again" movement. By this definition, American politics has been fascist since a President was elected on a fascist-by-definition campaign.
It is when it's entirely redundant, i.e. when you've heard the same arguments countless times before and know that you're about to reject them again.
You may notice that your sibling replies treat the "alternative viewpoint" in question as if it were objective fact, and show the same unwillingness. It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.
The "unwillingness" in question is the decision not to read and engage with another's perspective. The replies calling this a fact are actually engaging with the points being made. Whether or not American politics is becoming more fascist isn't really a matter of debate unless one simply doesn't know what the word "fascist" is referring to.
You seem, er, "unwilling" to engage with an objective definition of fascism. It's in another comment in this thread if you want to discuss it in good faith. What do you think? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575415) Personally, it seems kinda obvious that the phrase "Make America Great Again" was chosen specifically for how it evokes palingenetic ultranationalism.
> It's prudent to understand whose minds can actually be changed on issues like this.
It's prudent to say what you believe. Whether or not someone is willing to engage with your beliefs in good faith is on them.
That is a good advice. Do you follow it yourself? Did you, for instance, read Mein Kampf to “consider an alternative viewpoint”? Or is it only good when the “alternative viewpoint” is yours?
That assumes SF city politics would take over the suburbs.
The city of Indianapolis years ago merged itself with its surrounding county, to unify city and suburbs. This was instigated by the Republican suburban leadership so that the metro region would remain under Republican control. Indianapolis has been a more politically moderate city than peers as a result.
No, I'm saying that NYC is a very large city (speaking geographically, by population, or by politics). It has the super-liberal UWS and Greenwich/East Village, but also the UES, Staten Island, eastern Queens, Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, old-line Italians in Arthur Avenue, Howard Beach, and a lot of ordinary middle-class areas. All those areas balance out the nutty leftism of other parts of the city.
San Francisco doesn't have anything like that. As the article discusses, the middle class has been fleeing San Francisco for decades. it's never going to elect a Bloomberg, let alone a Giuliani.
