Open Source Devs Reverse Decision to Block ICE Contractors From Using Software (vice.com) 427
An anonymous reader quotes Motherboard:
Less than 24 hours after a software developer revoked access to Lerna, a popular open-source software management program, for any organization that contracted with U.S. immigrations and Customs Enforcement, access has been restored for any organization that wishes to use it and the developer has been removed from the project... The modified version specifically banned 16 organizations, including Microsoft, Palantir, Amazon, Northeastern University, Johns Hopkins University, Dell, Xerox, LinkedIn, and UPS... Although open-source developer Jamie Kyle acknowledged that it's "part of the deal" that anyone "can use open source for evil," he told me he couldn't stand to see the software he helped develop get used by companies contracting with ICE.
Kyle's modification of Lerna's license was originally assented to by other lead developers on the project, but the decision polarized the open-source community. Some applauded his principled stand against ICE's human rights violations, while others condemned his violation of the spirit of open-source software. Eric Raymond, the founder of the Open Source Initiative and one of the authors of the standard-bearing Open Source Definition, said Kyle's decision violated the fifth clause of the definition, which prohibits discrimination against people or groups. "Lerna has defected from the open-source community and should be shunned by anyone who values the health of that community," Raymond wrote in a blog post on his website.
The core contributor who eventually removed Kyle also apologized for Kyle's licensing change, calling it a "rash decision" (which was also "unenforceable.")
Eric Raymond had called the decision "destructive of one of the deep norms that keeps the open source community functional -- keeping politics separated from our work."
Kyle's modification of Lerna's license was originally assented to by other lead developers on the project, but the decision polarized the open-source community. Some applauded his principled stand against ICE's human rights violations, while others condemned his violation of the spirit of open-source software. Eric Raymond, the founder of the Open Source Initiative and one of the authors of the standard-bearing Open Source Definition, said Kyle's decision violated the fifth clause of the definition, which prohibits discrimination against people or groups. "Lerna has defected from the open-source community and should be shunned by anyone who values the health of that community," Raymond wrote in a blog post on his website.
The core contributor who eventually removed Kyle also apologized for Kyle's licensing change, calling it a "rash decision" (which was also "unenforceable.")
Eric Raymond had called the decision "destructive of one of the deep norms that keeps the open source community functional -- keeping politics separated from our work."
Quote (Score:3)
"Everything is politics." -- Thomas Mann
Re: (Score:3)
That's something a politician would have you believe.. Politics is the glue that fits disparate pieces together, but it should stay the hell out of doing the actual work for those pieces.
"Everything is actually science, just the politicians do it badly." -- Me.
Market still rules... (Score:3, Insightful)
A blind eye (Score:2, Insightful)
Its funny how we allow countries with communism, dictatorships, genocide, censorship use open source, but we must ban ICE. Trumpâ(TM)s command on ice is just horrible, but if there is any glimmer of compassion with the ICE agents, why suppress it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.
Re:A blind eye (Score:4, Insightful)
Another reason to keep politics out of software dev. Your bad guy isn't the always other community member's bad guy. If we let everyone exert their grudge on software licenses, no one would be able to use that software.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's impossible to separate politics from daily life, because politics is how we manage our daily lives. I say this as someone who was driven from their home, their family, their country of birth by politics.
But sometimes you also have to recognize that there are other issues. In this case the integrity of free software really matters. I take a hard line on it, I'm a strong supporter of the GPL and its principals, even when they meant that software can be used for evil.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny how you conflate an economic paradigm with various social evils. Communism isn't inherently evil, it's just that it has often come with totalitarianism. Capitalism doesn't have a great record for social good either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Said by a man living in one of the countries that is the greatest beneficiary of Capitalism lifting a huge portion of the planet out of abject poverty...
Is Capitalism perfect? Of course not.
But, carefully overseen, it's still a damn sight better than anything else humans have tried in the entirety of their history.
Re:A blind eye (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Bruce. Capitalism arises spontaneously whenever you give people a few basic freedoms. The only way to make communism/socialism work is to take those freedoms away. So the only way that you can argue that communism is not inherently evil is to say that it is not evil to take away such things as the right to detemine for yourself what you will do for a living and the right control the products of your own hands (which is the right to own property), the right to enter into mutually beneficial contracts,
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source is a commons which grants freedom. Specific individuals would be "more free" if it was a gift rather than sharing with rules, but the rules tend to make everybody more free.
So, we have this conflict of individualism vs. collectivism. I submit that it's better to make everyone more free than it is to make some people very free and other people mainly subject to them. This means the 1% vs. everyone else in today's "capitalism", which is probably more accurately described as a sort of economic feud
Re: (Score:2)
That's mainly because Open Source is not food or shelter. You're required to sponsor those in a socialist society because it's important for people to have a roof over their head and a full stomach. How we provide these needs is economics, and there is more than one way to do it.
Re:A blind eye (Score:5, Insightful)
Communism isn't inherently evil, it's just that it has often come with totalitarianism.
Sorry, Bruce, but you're wrong.
Communism is inherently evil; it can't work without tyranny, because it relies on idealized people who selflessly put the interest of the society above their own. This is not how real people behave. Capitalism relies on people following their impulses (even supposedly negative ones, like greed). It channels those impulses them in directions that benefit others, for example by rewarding people who produce or create new stuff. Communism wants to completely repress those impulses, so it has to force people to behave contrary to their natural inclinations. It has to indoctrinate people to follow the ideology, so freedom of speech and the free flow of ideas are forbidden. Also, communist countries don't reward producers or creators - at best, they should be happy they contributed to the betterment of society. At worst, they are regarded as exploiters, and repressed.
I have first hand knowledge of both systems - I lived more than half my life in an Eastern European country that was theoretically "building a Communist society", and then moved to capitalist America. The difference is huge. And I know some people will come up with the "no true Communism" argument - but those are mostly folks who have never experienced life in a communist country, and can't really understand the realities there.
I believe the best balance is a Canadian or Western-Europe style of capitalism, with strong laws and strong social support. American-style capitalism has become, IMHO, too unregulated and too influenced by money. However, with all its warts, it's miles better than any communist country.
Communism is a Grift (Score:3)
Bruce Perens wrote:
Communism isn't inherently evil, it's just that it has often come with totalitarianism.
Communism is a lie told by tyrants to grow and sustain political support for themselves.
Because falsehoods told to advance malevolent ends are categorically evil, Communism is inherently evil.
So Bruce, would you say it is an accurate characterization of your own beliefs that the lies and propaganda use by tyrants to gain power are not themselves evil? That it is exclusively the exercise of power for harmful ends which is evil? If so, what is your basis for that distinction? Additionall
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is this little problem with your thesis, which is that if you refuse to play the game, your children starve to death. That is, unless you hold some plot of ground by force of arms which you use to feed and water them. Ultimately there is little that is peaceful about it.
We could try acknowledging that people have a right to eat and be sheltered, and that the purpose of society is for everyone to work together to provide for those needs. I know some religious communes where people do this for eac
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is this little problem with your thesis, which is that if you refuse to play the game, your children starve to death.
And what happens to you and your family if you refuse to play the game in Communist countries?
Yeah, I'll take my chances with the capitalists.
Should Politics be Separated from Work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Should politics be separated from our work? I'm not convinced it should be. The whole idea of open source / free software is political in nature as it is a means to keep power and control of a users computing with them and not in the hands of any outside entity such as a corporation or government.
So let's take this to the extreme: If computing and Linux were around in WW2, should we have let Hitler use Linux? What if Hitler's use of Linux was the deciding factor in NAZI Germany winning the war?
Re:Should Politics be Separated from Work? (Score:5, Informative)
Computing was available. IBM sold tabulation machines and rented technicians to run them to the SS for use in the concentration camps.
Re: (Score:2)
Much to their profit and shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not should, can.
Re:Should Politics be Separated from Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. If Hitler wanted to use Linux, he should have the freedom to use Linux. It's not our job as software developers to save the world.
Sure, we can't completely remove politics from out work, but the current open source model does an excellent job of drawing the line.
We want freedom in software, and that freedom is extended to everyone, including evil people, unfortunately. That's the politics of open source. Anything else is a slippery slope that will be detrimental to the entire community.
If we deny Nazis from using Linux today, we can deny the Russians from using it tomorrow, then we can deny rich people from using it. And why stop there? Why allow people who think pineapple on pizza is acceptable to use Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Why allow people who think pineapple on pizza is acceptable to use Linux?
Don't knock it until you've tried it. I used to think the same, but ham and pineapple pizza is awesome.
Re:Should Politics be Separated from Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, politics should be kept the hell away from work in an open group.
In your example, a significant amount of developers would actually have been on the German side, so they'd be developing away like crazy on their fork (possibly as closed source extensions for their own personal use as a military in some cases), which is allowable anyway.
When in peace time you have an "agenda", and you try and poison open solutions by disallowing groups based on political belief (which is often poorly informed), then you're often just enshrining ignorant bigotry.
Take the ICE case; this is a completely underfunded organisation, trying to do the best it can to juggle a lot of conflicting factors (people trying to game the system, people abusing the system, and genuine people that need to follow particular paths and have them filtered away from the ones trying to game the system), and look after the people as well as it can with the funds. Individuals in it may have unpleasant attributes, but what organisation doesn't? The majority are trying to do a job well.
Denying them access because politics is only going to make matters worse for the end recipients, piss off people in the middle as it could muck about with them doing their job, and they'll see the reduction in care they're able to give, which sure as hell isn't going to endear the open source movement to them..
The options in a movement that explicitly states "this is open, available to everyone" are to either put the work in, knowing that you may disagree with some end uses, but the majority case is that you're benefitting people in general, or you can withhold your work, and not be part of that movement.
Good on ESR; I count this as a sane move. It's a shame the guy was the one thrown under the bus for what seemed to be a general consensus; if they were good at what they did, then a good old rollicking, learn from being stupid (and against the license you were working under), and getting on with the work would have been my preference. And all the senior staff that agreed with it should have been rollicked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So let's take this to the extreme: If computing and Linux were around in WW2, should we have let Hitler use Linux?
Do you _really_ think Hitler, and Nazi Germany are going to obey your little license agreement in that little readme during a war? Get serious here.
What if Hitler's use of Linux was the deciding factor in NAZI Germany winning the war?
Then I guess Linus gets the gas chamber? This is one of the stupidest questions I've heard in a long time. You might as well ask "If The Beatles has been around
Re:Should Politics be Separated from Work? (Score:4, Informative)
Should politics be separated from our work? I'm not convinced it should be. The whole idea of open source / free software is political in nature as it is a means to keep power and control of a users computing with them and not in the hands of any outside entity such as a corporation or government.
I think it's a good idea to keep them separated. The problem with your movement or organization taking a political stance is partisans start fighting back. Just look what's happened to science, AGW has big political implications and the moment it was embraced by "one side" the other side basically became an anti-science political movement. If Open Source gets rebranded as a left wing political philosophy you're going to start seeing legislation targeted at stopping those Libera^H^H^H Open Source people from writing code that controls important infrastructure.
The other big issue is that the Open Source community doesn't necessarily agree on politics outside of the idea of Open Source, and the Open Source community by it's nature tends to take political philosophy a bit more seriously than most. So branding community as a left-wing thing could really split the community. And you don't really want to get into discussions on whether to ban ICE while allowing the Chinese government.
So let's take this to the extreme: If computing and Linux were around in WW2, should we have let Hitler use Linux? What if Hitler's use of Linux was the deciding factor in NAZI Germany winning the war?
Ignoring the question of how you could stop him from using Linux...
Yes. I'm willing to sacrifice many of my principles to fight NAZIs.
Re:Should Politics be Separated from Work? (Score:4, Insightful)
he problem with your movement or organization taking a political stance is partisans start fighting back. Just look what's happened to science, AGW has big political implications and the moment it was embraced by "one side" the other side basically became an anti-science political movement.
What he said. The right has been saying to the left for a decade or so now "you keep changing the rules, but you're not going to like the new rules". Politicizing everything seems fun until you start realizing the other side can do it to. And, right now in the US, if you're on the left, you might ponder: hmm, the right has all the political power and seems to be on the rise.
Politicizing everything: think about how it will play out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how I recall it happening. The GOP rigged the vote with voter suppression and gerrymandering. After a couple of decades it's really paying off, but even so they only have a small majority and their president lost the popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The other big issue is that the Open Source community doesn't necessarily agree on politics...
The modern response to that is to bully people into agreeing or keeping quiet (and voting for Trump because he stands up to people who try to bully him).
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the question of how you could stop him from using Linux...
Yes. I'm willing to sacrifice many of my principles to fight NAZIs.
Now onto the real problem.
*Parades 1000 random people in front of you*
Now. Pick out the "nazi".
Re: (Score:3)
If you then start stipulating reasons (other than self-preservation) for why you should be able to restrict people's ability to copy and distribute open source software, you're saying that software's benefit to society can be increased by
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with vindictive clauses like this is "what if this person is wrong about what they're trying to prevent"? What if they have gone nuts?
"This license prevents Joe Piscopo from using our software. Because Joe Piscopo eats babies."
*Cue Joe Piscopo* HUH?!?!?!?
Again, OSS is political about ONE THING. The freedom to use software for all.
Can anyone who wants to use your software? Yes? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Anything else is best avoided, as there are 7+ billion people out there on the planet. And ve
Don't be a tool (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting yourself get emotionally manipulated by so-called news media is never wise. Their stories are just stories. They aren't about you. Don't be a tool -- don't let the news media control your life, or your actions, or whether you're happy or sad. They haven't earned it. They don't care about you. They won't be there for you when you need help. Your life means nothing to them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They aren't about you.
Not sure I get your meaning here. Isn't caring about other people a pretty fundamental and important part of humanity? In fact people who really don't care about others are called psychopaths.
Surely that's not what you meant, but I feel like caring about the activities of ICE is important and a good thing. Especially when your actions at the voting booth directly lead to those actions and their effect on other people's lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure I get your meaning here. Isn't caring about other people a pretty fundamental and important part of humanity? In fact people who really don't care about others are called psychopaths.
Pretending to care and making political noise isn't caring. Actually, genuinely helping individual people is caring. You have caring confused with posing and pretending.
Surely that's not what you meant, but I feel like caring about the activities of ICE is important and a good thing.
You don't know about "the activities of ICE". You only know stories. You don't know which stories are true or false or 40% true/60% false. You don't know all the stories the news media decided not to tell you -- to hide them from you.
Especially when your actions at the voting booth directly lead to those actions and their effect on other people's lives.
Not really. How do they? Because we're pretending laws might somehow change? Because we're fantasizin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretending to care and making political noise isn't caring. Actually, genuinely helping individual people is caring.
Trying to effect political change will help more people than trying to help one or two individually. Also, claiming that any sentiment you don't like is posturing (or "virtue signalling" in newspeak) is not an argument, it's just an out of hand dismissal.
You don't know which stories are true or false or 40% true/60% false.
Claiming that the truth is unknowable because all media lies all the time is a standard post-truth tactic to avoid criticism and generate apathy by making misdeeds easier to ignore.
Because we're pretending laws might somehow change?
It didn't even take a change in the law for ICE to start separating children
Re: (Score:2)
Pretending to care and making political noise isn't caring. Actually, genuinely helping individual people is caring.
Trying to effect political change will help more people than trying to help one or two individually. Also, claiming that any sentiment you don't like is posturing (or "virtue signalling" in newspeak) is not an argument, it's just an out of hand dismissal.
No it won't. You're just fantasizing . Because actually helping an individual costs you time or your own money, but fantasies don't cost you anything. You've helped no one, while declaring yourself a hero for having an emotion and waving a flag (and keeping your time and your money -- the things that genuinely help actual, individual people -- all to yourself).
You don't know which stories are true or false or 40% true/60% false.
Claiming that the truth is unknowable because all media lies all the time is a standard post-truth tactic to avoid criticism and generate apathy by making misdeeds easier to ignore.
Nevertheless, you still don't know.
Because we're pretending laws might somehow change?
It didn't even take a change in the law for ICE to start separating children from their parents, and it didn't take a chance in the law to stop it either. You argue that trying for political change is ineffective, when clearly it was effective in that case.
And you're encouraging people to keep walking children across the desert at night to be used as bargaining chip
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to effect political change iwll help more people
Unless you happen to be wrong or misled.
So if you wind up harming people en-masse, then what?
Claiming that the truth is unknowable
The truth isn't unknowable. You simply haven't done the research to discover the truth for yourself. You're relying on hearsay.
It didn't even take a change in the law for ICE to start separating children from their parents, and it didn't take a chance in the law to stop it either. You argue that trying for political change is ineffective, when clearly it was effective in that case.
They started well before Trump took office. Because what's ALSO happening down on the border is CHILD TRAFFICKING. People picking up kids at the border, claiming to be the parents, and using loopholes in the law to escape. A change, years back, made this harder. As attempts are now mad
Re: (Score:2)
What research would you recommend people do?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> There are people who care about others in the world,
You are a sanctimonious jackass trying to claim you are the only person with compassion or empathy.
Your perspective is not the only valid one. You can also see this as child kidnapping and endangerment. I could just as easily accuse you of being just as callous for your defense of child abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Caring doesn't require surrendering yourself to become the news media's tool.
If you genuinely care, why don't you specifically help someone? Rather than posing or posturing or pretending political noise solves anything, why not donate your time or money to a charity that genuinely helps individuals who need help?
Re: (Score:2)
There's "caring", and then there's pathological altruism.
What this guy did was the latter in the guise of the former.
Re: (Score:2)
How would we enforce something like this.
Everyone is a moron, sooner or later.
A death penalty would result, eventually, in the extermination of humanity.
Granted, to the pathological environmental carebears, this would not be a Bad Thing...
This is still about microsoft buying github (Score:4, Informative)
https://twitter.com/jamiebuild... [twitter.com]
https://github.com/Microsoft/w... [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read those links? He is complaining about Microsoft violating the MIT licence that Lerna was released under, not about them buying GitHub.
It seems that Microsoft created their own fork of Lerna called "Rush" that was substantially the same. If the code wasn't copied and refactored directly it was at least heavily based off Lerna. The MIT licence states that the copyright message must remain on such code, so if he is right (and a quick scan at the version he was talking about before Microsof
Boo-hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Us immigrants spent a lot of time and effort to never run afoul of ICE, not sure why some people have such trouble with them.
1. Mostly, they don't. If one event happens and the story is retold 10,000 times, it's still one event, not 10,000 of them. Specific activist groups are making noise to advance a political agenda. They want power. And claiming victimhood has been a route to power.
(It won't work this time because voters probably can't be persuaded that a foreign national who snuck in or overstayed a visa matters more than all the people who didn't. Who knows though.)
2. People mainly have trouble because they decided to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever tried getting healthcare in Canada?
No. I hear it's bad. I also hear it's good. So I don't know whether it's bad or good.
I can guess though: It's a human institution, so it can't be perfect. It's a government-run institution with a limited budget, so it has to be subject to distinct tradeoffs -- meaning you might get what you need, eventually, but you probably won't get exactly what you want. Canada's government seems less incompetent and corrupt than US governments, so that likely helps.
Once you get your Canadian passport, you can come
Re: (Score:2)
Protest is an important part of democracy. Trying to suppress protest by suggesting that people should not do it is anti-democratic.
Democracy is a balance. Direct democracy is a bad idea because it leads to the tyranny of the majority, so we have representative democracy. Sometimes the representation is broken though, as it currently is in the highly polarized United States. In which case protest is an important balance, and important way to address issues without resorting to civil war or direct attacks on
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanna protest, protest.
If you want to jack around the license of a software project that you are not the sole contributor to, that's not a protest.
Re:Boo-hoo (Score:4, Interesting)
No. As a US citizen, you're being ROBBED of your tax money...
I'll stop you right there. You are more right than you know. Taxation is not robbery only if you disagree with the use of the funds. If you think about the nature of taxation, it is really a confiscation of money from a person (remember that corporations are persons too). It is a confiscation because it is not is not an equitable and mutually agreed upon exchange. Therefore, it is always robbery. Also, the one on whom the tax is levied does not have the ability to not pay (in practice people evade taxes, but the government enforces compliance with harsh penalties) and market forces have on bearing on taxes (really taxes are themselves an influencer of the market).
All that said, taxes are necessary. The governed populace collectively identifies those matters which the government must discharge, manage, execute, etc., and via their representatives they levy taxes on themselves to see to it that those functions are accomplished.
This is what underlies the principal grievance of the American colonists prior to the American Revolution: taxation without representation. If taxation were not by its nature confiscatory, there would have been no grievance.
So, where we are left is to strike a careful balance of the things that the government should do and the things it should not do, then levy taxes appropriate to accomplishing the things it should do. This exercise must be accomplished at each level of government. It is painful, arduous, tedious, and never-ending. If you look at the last 100 years of history in the US, various crises have enabled the government to tip the balance toward expanding what government does at every level and especially at the federal level.
Of course, people are going to come out and say how every civilized nation provides healthcare, education, and jobs for their people. I suppose that is fine when you talk about a nation that has the population of Florida and you do not have a founding document that enumerates the power of the national government and then specifically prohibits it all other powers. To say nothing of the economic complexity of implementing those things on the scale of a nation and economy the size of the US.
Politics in the US is so polarized right now because lots of people want to rebalance the "things government should do" and "things government shouldn't do" while those who benefit from the expansion of government are not particularly excite about ceding their benefits. Add to that the fact that while many Republicans want to paint the party as being about small government, the reality is that they want as much government as the Democrats, but they want to get there by growing different parts of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the US is so big that no one is really represented anymore. It would be better for the US (and the world) if the US split into a few different countries, or a loose confederation of super-states.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say, "The problem is that the US federal government is so big ..."
Interestingly, the Articles of Confederation created a federal government that was effectively unable to do anything. This reflected the greatest fear of the founders: an overly powerful central gove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement takes a tiny cut of your taxes by comparison and they don't murder people for not paying taxes. Now if you really hate having money go towards your own protection, you should try moving to a country without decent law enforcement, such as Somalia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Free software is free (Score:2)
IF you want control over your software, close it.
Re: (Score:2)
Eric's memory is imperfect (Score:4, Informative)
Eric was not one of the original authors of the Open Source Definition. His memory is imperfect, I doubt deliberately, we're just old. The OSD was created about 9 months before the founding of OSI as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Eric wasn't a Debian developer. The only change upon forming OSI was the name of the document. Later on, OSD #10 was added (which IMO was not necessary as it's implied by OSD#6).
Also, Eric's call for shunning is a bit over the top. Just get with the values of Open Source and move on, or be very careful to call your non-Open-Source paradigm something other than Open Source.
Nor does it seem necessary to have expelled a developer, if he wished to remain with the project after the removal of an ill-thought-out license term. We can preserve the ethos without being draconian.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you really want to convince people not to do it, tar and feather him and place him in stocks in the town square, where anyone who dislikes him or just wants some kicks can come along and do whatever they like to him (that's how it worked) unless one of his friends stands there constantly to defend him.
Yeah, over the top.
Futile gesture (Score:5, Interesting)
And U.S. law, 28 USC 1498 [gtpac.org], specifically allows contractors for the Federal Government to use intellectual property for government projects whether they are licensed or not. Link discusses 28 USC 1498(a) (patent infringement), but 28 USC 1498(b) covers copyright infringement.
Oh sure, you can file an action in the Federal Court of Claims for "recovery of [your] reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement," but since the licensing cost for the rest of the world is zero... you do the math.
Why was he removed? (Score:4, Interesting)
The aspect of the story that doesn't make sense to me is the revocation of the developer's access. If he had gone and made the license change without consulting anyone, that would make sense, but by all accounts the other lead developers agreed to the change. In that case they should all share responsibility for making the change.
Is there something else going on with this guy?
Nice to see sanity won out here! (Score:2)
Hilarious. Some self-rightous putz decides he doesn't like law enforcement and corporations and gets himself kicked off a project. It's about time we start holding idiots like this accountable.
Re: (Score:3)
What's wrong with restricting how you want your work to be used? It is yours after all.
Re:Slippery one-upmanship (Score:4, Insightful)
Feel free, but then it's no longer FOSS and is effectively removed from the open source community.
Re:Slippery one-upmanship (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're working under the express license that you can't restrict how you want your work to be done, as part of a much larger project, then your choices are either do the work, knowing you'll benefit the groups that you want to help, with edge cases that ones will exist that you don't, or just leave the project. That simple.
If the entire group feel that strongly, they can stop using the license, and build a new product that they can happily play politics with.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the project he did it to wasn't solely "his".
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, seperating small children from their parents and not even keeping enough information to ever bring them back together is extreme. If that's OK, why not help China root out American spies and help whoever hack the election?
Re: (Score:2)
If you only work with people who agree with you on every political topic, you'll be forever working alone.
Re: (Score:2)
So you support American developers helping the Chinese government find and shoot American operatives?
Re:Slippery one-upmanship (Score:4)
I totally agree with you. Bush Omega and Obama never should has enabled that policy to start with. How about this? When we arrest them we just toss their children into prison with them? But wait! Families need to be kept together so lets just toss granny in there with them. Just like they do in NK or old style USSR? How about that?
Re: (Score:2)
If their children are to be detained also, like the immigrant children are, then why shouldn't they be detained together? However, I note this didn't happen under Bush or Obama.
I'll also note that when citizens are detained awaiting trial, their children aren't just shipped some place without sufficient documentation to reunite them.
Re: (Score:3)
If their children are to be detained also, like the immigrant children are, then why shouldn't they be detained together?
Because the law was changed, years ago, so that children couldn't be incarcerated in adult facilities.
However, I note this didn't happen under Bush or Obama.
You are mistaken.
I'll also note that when citizens are detained awaiting trial, their children aren't just shipped some place without sufficient documentation to reunite them.
Those are citizens. Different rules apply to citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
It also wouldn't happen if ICE had put the slightest bit of effort into keeping track of whose child was whose and where they went.
You know, honoring a basic duty of care?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no I don't. But even more, I don't want them incarcerated with no way to reunite them with their parents. But note they're still incarcerated now, it's just that they're in kiddie jail rather than a family oriented facility.
Re:SJW Cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
This wasn't a cancer. This was Kyle being thrown under the bus when the other lead devs saw the inevitable shitstorm get kicked up. It does not endear me to the other lead developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Very timely, very relevant: https://youtu.be/l63nY0AYebI [youtu.be]
Most of this meta-outrage is manufactured.
Re: (Score:2)
Very timely, very relevant: https://youtu.be/l63nY0AYebI [youtu.be]
What does a video about some overwrought outrage over a few tweets, over a trailer for a video game, have to do with this topic? We're talking about developers, that wield actual power over a software project, going against one of the fundamental principles of open source.
Re:SJW Cancer (Score:4, Informative)
No. It's cancer.
Kyle wasn't thrown under a bus.
He tried to make a major change to the licensing of software that wasn't entirely his own.
He was smacked for it. End of story.
Kyle's still free to fork "My Shitty, Politically Vindictive Learna Offshoot".
He's simply not being allowed to do it for the primary project.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't a cancer. This was Kyle being thrown under the bus
Kyle is the cancer. The other developers wizened up, a welcome change in the software industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except here, the principles should have been these [opensource.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And if this sort of thing is something that matters to you, put in a morality clause [wikipedia.org] somewhere, so that people know something like this is a firing offense (or an excommunicable offense) when they commit to that relationship (employer-employee, or core contributor to a project).
Re: (Score:2)
You say this not knowing what went on behind the scenes at the software project.
What if I told you the person was given the opportunity to keep their position while willingly retracting the new licensing terms...and refused?
How does THAT change the narrative in your head?
Politics are in everything in life (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider that an attempt to bamboozle people into believing that politics is something to be avoided or an attempt to fool people into believing that one can "keep politics separated from [one's] work". Such a thing is not possible as people hold different views on all sorts of things and work together for different reasons.
Right in line with this is an assertion I've only ever read from advocates of the open source development methodology that some licenses (such as the MIT X11, the 3-clause BSD, and the Apache v2.0 licenses) are "apolitical" whereas the GNU GPLs (v2, v3, and the AGPLs) are "political". And this is typically said in a context which tries to demean use or defense of the relevant GPL. It's no accident that the former set are lax permissive, non-copyleft, or (as free software activist Richard Stallman aptly puts it) "pushover" licenses which all allow proprietary derivatives and these GNU GPLs do not allow proprietary derivatives. It's also no accident that large proprietary firms are fans of the open source development methodology. They stand to benefit when people develop powerful useful software and license it to allow for proprietary derivatives.
A better and more useful observation is that politics are an inescapable part of life, it's better to understand what's really going on and why (typically uncovered by asking 'who benefits?'), and that different political views are not the same as an absence of politics.
Re: (Score:2)
"Where they come down is not my business."
— Werner Von Braun
Werner von Braun would have been nobody if Robert Goddard has not openly published his liquid fueled rocket tech: The V2 was another example of the success of open science, and the V2 tech led to Sputnik and Apollo, as well as all the ICBMs. This is what can happen when we all cooperate and work together.
Nitpick: von is not capitalized in German names.
Re:"I just send the rockets up" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Deporter in Chief's (Obama) policy resulted in kids being handed back to human traffickers to be sold as slave labor [senate.gov].
Maybe it's time for Congress to actually fix the fucking problem instead of calling ICE nazis?
Re: (Score:2)
.What should be common sense is to treat immigrants and refugees humanely regardless of whether or not they are ultimately allowed entry.
Now that’s just crazy talk.
Re: (Score:3)
It's because you're buying into the strawman argument about the D's wanting to have totally open borders.
The Democrats have become the party of illegal immigration and transgender bathroom "rights".
They support the "sanctuary" city/states. They cry when Trump calls MS13 animals. They act hysterical when Trump has the same policy as Obama. They are the ones against a wall, deportations, and an end to chain migration. They are the ones who are happy their white grandchildren children want [townhall.com] to be brown.
Re: (Score:3)
Because we're hallucinating when we hear protesters chanting "Ban ICE!" and "No ban. No wall. No borders at all."
Right?
We're imagining that Democratic leaders insist on mangling the language to the point where they can't even say the legal term "Illegal aliens". And they're more concerned about the illegal aliens than the people they murder...
Right?
As to your BS assertion about cracking down on people employing illegal immigrants.
What do you THINK was going on?
The manpower of ICE is limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay Abe Skrillex. Calm down.