You can gatekeep just fine while still being open source. Just be restrictive in who you allow to actually work on the project, what you allow to pass through, etc etc. There's generally fuck all invading trannies can do if they're not given any power or influence.
Granted, there might still be a few avenues they could take to cause plenty of headache, but generally that shouldn't be too difficult to safeguard against so long as a project lead doesn't get lax.
So let's game theory that. Admittedly to the worst extent, but let's be real we live in hell.
You have an open source project with publicly available code. You deny entry to a troon.
Said troon copies your publicly available code and goes on media blitz claiming you discriminated against him. Your bank Alex Jones's you and your supporters are largely driven off. Said troon is now the effective owner of the project going forward.
And that's easily doable to you in say, Canada.
I'd you by default don't share code, it's much more difficult to do this to you.
Closed source software companies have a similar problem that leads to their infiltration. Namely any form of ostensible public participation. If something is open to the public you effectively cannot gatekeep because of the thrice cursed CRA.
Until the right re-establishes cultural and legal control, public participation is invariably a negative and a vulnerability.
it's only because the people who start open source projects to begin with are either spineless or ill-informed about what "community managers" really want (kids to groom). we, here, who know about them, choose to talk about it instead of starting open source projects...
"open source" is not a solution to a damn thing. It is, by design, a refusal to gatekeep.
I would. Know why? Because the Linux guys are getting kicked out of their own projects by "community managers".
I absolutely would conflate open source with open borders because that's the result in front of us.
You can gatekeep just fine while still being open source. Just be restrictive in who you allow to actually work on the project, what you allow to pass through, etc etc. There's generally fuck all invading trannies can do if they're not given any power or influence.
Granted, there might still be a few avenues they could take to cause plenty of headache, but generally that shouldn't be too difficult to safeguard against so long as a project lead doesn't get lax.
So let's game theory that. Admittedly to the worst extent, but let's be real we live in hell.
You have an open source project with publicly available code. You deny entry to a troon.
Said troon copies your publicly available code and goes on media blitz claiming you discriminated against him. Your bank Alex Jones's you and your supporters are largely driven off. Said troon is now the effective owner of the project going forward.
And that's easily doable to you in say, Canada.
I'd you by default don't share code, it's much more difficult to do this to you.
Closed source software companies have a similar problem that leads to their infiltration. Namely any form of ostensible public participation. If something is open to the public you effectively cannot gatekeep because of the thrice cursed CRA.
Until the right re-establishes cultural and legal control, public participation is invariably a negative and a vulnerability.
Does the same thing not happen with closed source projects?
Yes. Hence my reference to gatekeeping. Organizations that don't do it, fail.
However, some forms of organization are inherently incapable of gatekeeping. I'm arguing that open source has this flaw.
it's only because the people who start open source projects to begin with are either spineless or ill-informed about what "community managers" really want (kids to groom). we, here, who know about them, choose to talk about it instead of starting open source projects...
Why on earth would I start an open source project? Or anyone here for that matter? We have lives and we value our time.