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.
Because he fucked up. He either gave some same-level permissions to some retards he couldn't trust, or he created some kind of an outlined community/business setup that actually allows him to be ousted.
At its core, all open source is, is making a project or product's source code available for public use and redistribution. There are of course different open source licenses with different kinds of rules and conditions. And like I already said in another comment, what license is used is totally up to the project lead.
Dude, I'm not saying the bad thing that happened isn't bad. I'm saying you're blaming it on the wrong thing. This type of thing happens to many corporations, as we've already seen. It happens because the founders voluntarily give too much power and trust to the wrong people.
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.
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.
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?
Because he fucked up. He either gave some same-level permissions to some retards he couldn't trust, or he created some kind of an outlined community/business setup that actually allows him to be ousted.
At its core, all open source is, is making a project or product's source code available for public use and redistribution. There are of course different open source licenses with different kinds of rules and conditions. And like I already said in another comment, what license is used is totally up to the project lead.
Dude, I'm not saying the bad thing that happened isn't bad. I'm saying you're blaming it on the wrong thing. This type of thing happens to many corporations, as we've already seen. It happens because the founders voluntarily give too much power and trust to the wrong people.
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.