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.
Alright, I agree, such scenarios are not only plausible, but actively occurring. And you already covered one of the points I was going to bring up, that even with closed source, your company can still be taken over by a board of directors or some such scenario.
I'll also agree that closed source can still be a very effective gatekeeping layer to keep invaders at bay.
And it seems like we're likely actually on the same page, mostly. Where the real cause of the problem is the entire clownworld leftist nightmare that allows trannies to successfully pull this kind of shit off in the first place. Where the media will actively operate as a propaganda mouthpiece for the trannies no matter the situation, and where governments are actively giving them special protections and privileges.
My main contention was with what at first sounded like wide-sweeping condemnation of open source as a concept entirely.
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.
So because you can get canceled for wrongthink, then let's blame open source and say that it can't solve anything? I mean in that scenario you could get canceled regardless of what you do. You may as well blame free speech for what happened to Alex Jones.
Why would open source be incapable of gatekeeping? The maintainer of a project can simply refuse to accept pull requests or suggestions from contributors they don't like. You can even copyright your code and still have it be considered open source.
Exactly. Project leads also decide on what licenses they release their code/project under.
Generally, a project's only going to be taken over because the creators/managers of said project allow it to happen. Often through negligence, laziness, passing the project onto others who can't be trusted, and/or out of deliberately capitulation.
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...
because in the modern digital age they make up a decent chunk of the software world, which gives them cultural reach beyond their budgets, and when the programmers move on to closed source with all they've learned, beyond their scopes. therefore, it is best that we control those, not pedophiles.
it's the same reason that on earth you'd want to publish art, develop games, live in cities, run news stations, be a community manager... on a cold heartless paper all of these things seem like detriments to our fantasy ideals because they're often painful experiences, but they're often painful because we neglected them and they remain painful and harmful to our culture because we keep neglecting them.
one random American, paraphrased: "if our enemy is in the movies, we must be in the movies, if our enemy is in the comic books, we must be in the comic books..."
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.
Alright, I agree, such scenarios are not only plausible, but actively occurring. And you already covered one of the points I was going to bring up, that even with closed source, your company can still be taken over by a board of directors or some such scenario.
I'll also agree that closed source can still be a very effective gatekeeping layer to keep invaders at bay.
And it seems like we're likely actually on the same page, mostly. Where the real cause of the problem is the entire clownworld leftist nightmare that allows trannies to successfully pull this kind of shit off in the first place. Where the media will actively operate as a propaganda mouthpiece for the trannies no matter the situation, and where governments are actively giving them special protections and privileges.
My main contention was with what at first sounded like wide-sweeping condemnation of open source as a concept entirely.
Yeah that's the crux of my argument here. We're in a situation where we should act like dissidents, because we are.
So because you can get canceled for wrongthink, then let's blame open source and say that it can't solve anything? I mean in that scenario you could get canceled regardless of what you do. You may as well blame free speech for what happened to Alex Jones.
No. Because you can get cancelled for wrong think, the assumption of theft is close to an inevitability.
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.
Why would open source be incapable of gatekeeping? The maintainer of a project can simply refuse to accept pull requests or suggestions from contributors they don't like. You can even copyright your code and still have it be considered open source.
Exactly. Project leads also decide on what licenses they release their code/project under.
Generally, a project's only going to be taken over because the creators/managers of said project allow it to happen. Often through negligence, laziness, passing the project onto others who can't be trusted, and/or out of deliberately capitulation.
The founder of project gets kicked off the thing he created, and you're here right now arguing that there isn't anything wrong with this paradigm?
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.
because in the modern digital age they make up a decent chunk of the software world, which gives them cultural reach beyond their budgets, and when the programmers move on to closed source with all they've learned, beyond their scopes. therefore, it is best that we control those, not pedophiles.
it's the same reason that on earth you'd want to publish art, develop games, live in cities, run news stations, be a community manager... on a cold heartless paper all of these things seem like detriments to our fantasy ideals because they're often painful experiences, but they're often painful because we neglected them and they remain painful and harmful to our culture because we keep neglecting them.
one random American, paraphrased: "if our enemy is in the movies, we must be in the movies, if our enemy is in the comic books, we must be in the comic books..."
Oh I see the problem here. You still think this is about persuading anyone.