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.
Ok, I'll agree with you on that, although your original comment seemed to imply a much different argument. If you fear that your property and freedom can be arbitrarily stolen at any moment, then yes, the best thing to do would be to maintain as much privacy and anonymity as possible.
You could technically release your code anonymously too, thus protecting yourself. But if we're assuming that copyrights won't be respected, then your code can still be stolen. On the flip side, consumers are much less likely to trust a program if they can't see how it works, which is pretty important for security. Thus, I would still say it has benefits depending on the situation.
Consumers are, as the continued dominance of Windows shows, completely retarded. Windows functionality has degraded year after year for a decade and they still control the market. I'm no fan of Apple either but then I dislike most cults.
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.
Hardly. Saying that something would work if it wasn't for the leftist infiltrators, is the same as saying it doesn't work.
Because we won't be rid of them until after a continent wide bloodbath.
No. Because you can get cancelled for wrong think, the assumption of theft is close to an inevitability.
Ok, I'll agree with you on that, although your original comment seemed to imply a much different argument. If you fear that your property and freedom can be arbitrarily stolen at any moment, then yes, the best thing to do would be to maintain as much privacy and anonymity as possible.
You could technically release your code anonymously too, thus protecting yourself. But if we're assuming that copyrights won't be respected, then your code can still be stolen. On the flip side, consumers are much less likely to trust a program if they can't see how it works, which is pretty important for security. Thus, I would still say it has benefits depending on the situation.
Consumers are, as the continued dominance of Windows shows, completely retarded. Windows functionality has degraded year after year for a decade and they still control the market. I'm no fan of Apple either but then I dislike most cults.