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.
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.
Aye, I think we all jumped into a blender of small semantic-level disagreements here. And no offense, I mistakenly had assumed you were talking out of your ass, based on your first two comments.
I occasionally see a handful of clueless takes on technology topics around here (and elsewhere really) so I jumped the gun quite a bit.
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?
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.
I addressed that argument in my other mistake recent comment. Public participation is a vulnerability.
Aye, I think we all jumped into a blender of small semantic-level disagreements here. And no offense, I mistakenly had assumed you were talking out of your ass, based on your first two comments.
I occasionally see a handful of clueless takes on technology topics around here (and elsewhere really) so I jumped the gun quite a bit.