Founder Of Open Source Is Banned By Open Source DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Ron
I think you're a genuinely good person but this video is riddled with problems such as arguing from authority, lots of confused terms and a very partial framing. Assuming he got banned for a single email is absurd, there's probably things going on behind the scenes that happened and the email shines some light into what the guy believes with the parroting of your typical Ben Shapiro garbage about marxist/identity politics conspiracy plots. Apparently being debunked over and over it's not enough for them to stop catching on and start ignoring the constant baiting from the media with stories about billion dollar companies getting -cancelled-. ESR has a field of expertise and is admirable for his free software advocacy, this doesn't make his socio-political views moral in anyway, personally I find him to be the opposite and when it comes to working out a way to protect certain groups that he clearly doesn't like I'm not surprised he'd oppose it. Which is terrible but not surprising, what's surprising or sad is then trying to spread this conspiracy bs because he can't accept a decision, trying in turn to -cancel- the people HE disagrees with.
And I'm not making bets or predictions but please, if this is all a big hoax to scaremonger against -SJWs- trying to take over the multiverse with -identity politics- once again, can we stop taking the bait next time. I don't even care about people agreeing with some of that stuff as much as please, when you see a news article with the words -cancel-, -SJW-, -liberal-, just move on it's the same exact bs they've been writing for years, different names, always debunked.
And please don't take it as a partizan feeling, act morally regardless of whichever old guy is asking for your vote now.
reply
I think you're a genuinely good person but this video is riddled with problems such as arguing from authority, lots of confused terms and a very partial framing. Assuming he got banned for a single email is absurd, there's probably things going on behind the scenes that happened and the email shines some light into what the guy believes with the parroting of your typical Ben Shapiro garbage about marxist/identity politics conspiracy plots. Apparently being debunked over and over it's not enough for them to stop catching on and start ignoring the constant baiting from the media with stories about billion dollar companies getting -cancelled-. ESR has a field of expertise and is admirable for his free software advocacy, this doesn't make his socio-political views moral in anyway, personally I find him to be the opposite and when it comes to working out a way to protect certain groups that he clearly doesn't like I'm not surprised he'd oppose it. Which is terrible but not surprising, what's surprising or sad is then trying to spread this conspiracy bs because he can't accept a decision, trying in turn to -cancel- the people HE disagrees with.
And I'm not making bets or predictions but please, if this is all a big hoax to scaremonger against -SJWs- trying to take over the multiverse with -identity politics- once again, can we stop taking the bait next time. I don't even care about people agreeing with some of that stuff as much as please, when you see a news article with the words -cancel-, -SJW-, -liberal-, just move on it's the same exact bs they've been writing for years, different names, always debunked.
And please don't take it as a partizan feeling, act morally regardless of whichever old guy is asking for your vote now.
reply
eric
Um.... while I agree with some other comments that the Ethical Software folks could (should?) just make their own software and own license, I disagree with your claims that -no logical person could disagree with...- starting at - 4:45. I'm reasonably confident that the founding fathers of OSI didn't have in mind bad actors when they wrote clauses 5 and 6. Just as the US's founding fathers left gaps in the Constitution, not accounting for bad faith actors trying to gum up the works, I think ESR and the rest were considering the basic idea of making software less expensive overall. I doubt they thought, -oh wait, what if contractors use this to arrest people for pre-crime?- That last thing actually happened, btw.
reply
Um.... while I agree with some other comments that the Ethical Software folks could (should?) just make their own software and own license, I disagree with your claims that -no logical person could disagree with...- starting at - 4:45. I'm reasonably confident that the founding fathers of OSI didn't have in mind bad actors when they wrote clauses 5 and 6. Just as the US's founding fathers left gaps in the Constitution, not accounting for bad faith actors trying to gum up the works, I think ESR and the rest were considering the basic idea of making software less expensive overall. I doubt they thought, -oh wait, what if contractors use this to arrest people for pre-crime?- That last thing actually happened, btw.
reply
mobilejones
This is a very political commentary. The Open Software Foundation has been around since 1988 and started with Unix. The more you know. Open Source was just a way for the next generation to claim ownership. Now there's a new generation that want to put their stake in the ground with ethical software. Okay. Does it materially change the fact that open source is now dominated by FANNG and Microsoft? No. So politically charged phrases like social justice warriors hurled as invective make your position quite clear. Thank you, next.
reply
This is a very political commentary. The Open Software Foundation has been around since 1988 and started with Unix. The more you know. Open Source was just a way for the next generation to claim ownership. Now there's a new generation that want to put their stake in the ground with ethical software. Okay. Does it materially change the fact that open source is now dominated by FANNG and Microsoft? No. So politically charged phrases like social justice warriors hurled as invective make your position quite clear. Thank you, next.
reply
quantumac
Consider those who have made open-source contributions thus far have done so under the old license without any consideration to this new -ethical- license. It should be obvious all these contributors have their own ethics, their own ideas about what is ethical. How is it ethical to change the license without having -COMPLETE- agreement from -ALL- the contributors? Can past contributors remove their contributions from these projects if they disagree with this new -ethical- license being imposed on these projects?
reply
Consider those who have made open-source contributions thus far have done so under the old license without any consideration to this new -ethical- license. It should be obvious all these contributors have their own ethics, their own ideas about what is ethical. How is it ethical to change the license without having -COMPLETE- agreement from -ALL- the contributors? Can past contributors remove their contributions from these projects if they disagree with this new -ethical- license being imposed on these projects?
reply
Paul
by Richard Stallman-
The terms -free software- and -open source- stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
reply
by Richard Stallman-
The terms -free software- and -open source- stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
reply
Kra-s
The ironic thing about this is it proves the importance of Richard Stallman's criticisms of -open source,- and that foundation. -Open source- lacks the ethical premise by which Free Software is based. The -Four essential freedoms- are missing from ESR's foundation, and this is why SJWs are able to push their agenda and change it. The key is the wording in the license. Anyone is free to make or use whatever license they wish, and that's why GNU GPL 2.0 and 3.0 are king.
reply
The ironic thing about this is it proves the importance of Richard Stallman's criticisms of -open source,- and that foundation. -Open source- lacks the ethical premise by which Free Software is based. The -Four essential freedoms- are missing from ESR's foundation, and this is why SJWs are able to push their agenda and change it. The key is the wording in the license. Anyone is free to make or use whatever license they wish, and that's why GNU GPL 2.0 and 3.0 are king.
reply
DerNervigeTyp
To be fair -toxic loonytoon- is a bit insulting to no matter whom it is targeting. Banning seems a bit extreme and the OSI should have handled it in a more transparent way (pointing out the specific breach of coc, etc.), however it would be wrong to say that he did not use language that violated the community guidelines.
Edit:
I do agree with the esr definition of oss
reply
To be fair -toxic loonytoon- is a bit insulting to no matter whom it is targeting. Banning seems a bit extreme and the OSI should have handled it in a more transparent way (pointing out the specific breach of coc, etc.), however it would be wrong to say that he did not use language that violated the community guidelines.
Edit:
I do agree with the esr definition of oss
reply
Thor
If we go by evil, we would have to ban all governments and basically all big companies.
I have no problem with advocating evolving past them, but doing that with restricting open source software is just silly.
If you write a program and want to restrict access to it... that is the up to the programmer but at this point it is not open source software.
reply
If we go by evil, we would have to ban all governments and basically all big companies.
I have no problem with advocating evolving past them, but doing that with restricting open source software is just silly.
If you write a program and want to restrict access to it... that is the up to the programmer but at this point it is not open source software.
reply
David
ESR has valid points to discuss, but his rant -was- personal and at one point vulgar. Not sure how you can read --person- is a toxic loonytoon- and then follow that with -nothing he said was over the top- and -nothing he said could be considered derogatory-... if someone calls you a toxic loonytoon, let me clue you in... they meant to be derogatory.
reply
ESR has valid points to discuss, but his rant -was- personal and at one point vulgar. Not sure how you can read --person- is a toxic loonytoon- and then follow that with -nothing he said was over the top- and -nothing he said could be considered derogatory-... if someone calls you a toxic loonytoon, let me clue you in... they meant to be derogatory.
reply
OrangeSheep14
DistroTube, you could have made this video without calling people -SJWs- when ESR goes on this bizzare mailing list rant. I wonder how you would feel if a liberal used the exact same kind of wording. Just because he is the founder doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants. You made this video more political than the liberals did.
reply
DistroTube, you could have made this video without calling people -SJWs- when ESR goes on this bizzare mailing list rant. I wonder how you would feel if a liberal used the exact same kind of wording. Just because he is the founder doesn't mean he can say whatever he wants. You made this video more political than the liberals did.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
