[Rancid]

I've been thinking about open source projects and what makes them successful or not because of this thread.

I'm realizing, that there's this idea that (successful) open source projects are these highly democratized projects, where everyone has a share, everyone has a say, etc. etc. However, in my experience, I would argue it's kind of the opposite. Successful open source projects like Linux are successful because they have strong leadership. It's not a loose network of random people contributing. You need a strong leader, and strong gate keepers. Often, this will make people who get rejected feel like shit. Granted, those leaders and gate keepers don't need to be assholes to get their message across.

I'm currently working on an open source project that basically has no leadership. It's very decentralized, and thus, it's a shit code base. This project could use some strong leadership. Some strong architects/gate keepers. Basically, having a authoritarian that knows what he/she is doing, would do this project a lot of good.

I don't know how that relates to the original point of the thread, but it's just something I've been thinking about.

[fuser]

So you are a Stalinist after all.

[Rancid]

So you are a Stalinist after all.

I guess so. I guess so. I'm starting to realize I'm much more a left wing authoritarian than a right wing authoritarian.

CHINA CHINA CHINA!!!

[Potemkin]

I've been thinking about open source projects and what makes them successful or not because of this thread.

I'm realizing, that there's this idea that (successful) open source projects are these highly democratized projects, where everyone has a share, everyone has a say, etc. etc. However, in my experience, I would argue it's kind of the opposite. Successful open source projects like Linux are successful because they have strong leadership. It's not a loose network of random people contributing. You need a strong leader, and strong gate keepers. Often, this will make people who get rejected feel like shit. Granted, those leaders and gate keepers don't need to be assholes to get their message across.

I'm currently working on an open source project that basically has no leadership. It's very decentralized, and thus, it's a shit code base. This project could use some strong leadership. Some strong architects/gate keepers. Basically, having a authoritarian that knows what he/she is doing, would do this project a lot of good.

I don't know how that relates to the original point of the thread, but it's just something I've been thinking about.

Welcome, Comrade Rancito!

Engels - On Authority

[Rancid]

Welcome, Comrade Rancito!

Engels - On Authority

A little hard to read, but yes, and yes.

[Rich]

How in God's name is open source leadership the same as Stalin? If you don't like the way Linus leads Linux you can just fork it. The market system allows multiple leadership styles, worker owned Coops, Single owner businesses, partnerships, private limited companies, public limited companies.

It just shows the intellectual bankruptcy of Marxism that they would try and present Open Source with a strong leader as similar to the incompetent dysfunctional murderous terror state under Stalin. The Soviet software industry was a joke.

[pugsville]

I couldn't find the SJW thread so I had to start a new thread for this. I didn't mind SJW's funny stuff because it is hilarious in a sad sort of way and it didn't affect me personally but if they manage to wreck linux though that is another matter completely, I use linux, and linux runs the whole bloody internet too!

The Whole Story is just so incredibility wrong , ignorant about how open source works. You add code to an open source project that it, there is no pulling your code out, you do not retain copyright, any project that is operating with a license that let's you do that just does not qualify for the tag open source.

A guy talking about something he admits straight out at the start he had no Idea about, from some media source he has no idea about, and is any surprise that the whole thing is just a mash of misinformation and Chinese whispers that it's about as valuable and informative as line noise.

Open source you don't like the project were it's going, fork it, (split off the project tree at wha6tever point you like) and start your own project. (happens all the time) Open source is just like the rest of the software development world. project management is a problem. bad projects, Bad code, Stalled projects going nowhere happen there just like the rest of the software industry.

[Rich]

The Whole Story is just so incredibility wrong , ignorant about how open source works. You add code to an open source project that it, there is no pulling your code out, you do not retain copyright, any project that is operating with a license that let's you do that just does not qualify for the tag open source.

You do retain copy right, unless you specifically, give / sell it away. I think in some legal jurisdictions its illegal to sell your copy right. The point is that if someone breaks copy right you can sue them. This is the sword of Damocles hanging over Linux. Tens of thousands of developers have a copy right interest in the Linux kernel, hence anyone of them can potentially sue any Linux user. The Linux GPL 2 licence is massively ambiguous and open to interpretation, but it is essentially impossible to truly follow. A lot of Linux installations work with closed source drivers and virtually all installations use close source firmware. How much time has been wasted on not bundleing GeForce graphic drivers.

Meanwhile the big corporations love Linux. Amazon, Facebook et al might be running Linux on their servers, whoopy do, how exactly does that help us? do you see their source code? When it comes to Desktop Microsoft and Apple totally dominate, and Android the one mass user market where Linux dominates is an absolute joke as an open source system. The GPL is totally restrictive for the small user, but totally permissive where it matters for the big corporations. Richard Stallman is a demented ideologue, who deliberately writes bad software, at least with Clang there's another area that we no longer have to put up with his crap.

[pugsville]

You do retain copy right, unless you specifically, give / sell it away. I think in some legal jurisdictions its illegal to sell your copy right. The point is that if someone breaks copy right you can sue them. This is the sword of Damocles hanging over Linux. Tens of thousands of developers have a copy right interest in the Linux kernel, hence anyone of them can potentially sue any Linux user. The Linux GPL 2 licence is massively ambiguous and open to interpretation, but it is essentially impossible to truly follow. A lot of Linux installations work with closed source drivers and virtually all installations use close source firmware. How much time has been wasted on not bundleing GeForce graphic drivers.

Meanwhile the big corporations love Linux. Amazon, Facebook et al might be running Linux on their servers, whoopy do, how exactly does that help us? do you see their source code? When it comes to Desktop Microsoft and Apple totally dominate, and Android the one mass user market where Linux dominates is an absolute joke as an open source system. The GPL is totally restrictive for the small user, but totally permissive where it matters for the big corporations. Richard Stallman is a demented ideologue, who deliberately writes bad software, at least with Clang there's another area that we no longer have to put up with his crap.

Ah the reassuring world of fantasy where you don;t actually have to deal with the real world.

It's not how tings work

you release things under a license you cannot unrelease them. It's not how things work.

this is just a fantasy,

fake reality for those that fake news just isnt unreal enough,

[Rugoz]

How in God's name is open source leadership the same as Stalin? If you don't like the way Linus leads Linux you can just fork it. The market system allows multiple leadership styles, worker owned Coops, Single owner businesses, partnerships, private limited companies, public limited companies.

Yeah, what everyone always forgets is that of a 100 visionary leaders 99 are eliminated by the market because their vision wasn't to the benefit of consumers and investors. On the level of government there's no such mechanism, at least none that wouldn't involve huge negative externalities (such as warfare).

[Rich]

Ah the reassuring world of fantasy where you don;t actually have to deal with the real world.

It's not how tings work

you release things under a license you cannot unrelease them. It's not how things work.

this is just a fantasy,

fake reality for those that fake news just isnt unreal enough,

Ah you capable of basic reading comprehension? You don't need to unrelease them. The Linux kernel hierarchy has a very cosy relationship with their big corporate backers. Huge numbers of companies are breaking the GPL. When kernel developers sue those companies the corrupt leadership of the Kernel community sets about slandering and vilifying them. This is partly because of the huge complexities of implementing the GPL licence in respect to Linux. The huge ambiguities that have never been resolved. Ambiuites that could be resolved differently in different legal jurisdictions.

Please educate yourself on some of the complexities before firing off silly diatribes. Linus Torvalds is a very smart bloke, but its obvious even he didn't really understand the complex and unpredictable implications of copyleft licences. His I'm OK with Tivolisaation is classic post rationalisation, but even if he's OK with it, I'm not. If you insist on using a restrictive licence use the AGPL, but much better to abandon this vain cause and use Apache 2.

[Rancid]

The Whole Story is just so incredibility wrong , ignorant about how open source works. You add code to an open source project that it, there is no pulling your code out, you do not retain copyright, any project that is operating with a license that let's you do that just does not qualify for the tag open source.

GPL V2 which is the license version Linux is under states that the contributor does indeed keep the copyright.

In GPL V3, the contributor does NOT keep the copyright. However, in order to move the project to GPL V3, you would need agreement from literally thousands of people.

The above is what I've been able to gather independent of that video posted in the OP.From what I can tell, this threat of code getting yanked is very real.

ALL of that said. I don't know if hte above about the GPL licenses is true.

[Rancid]

Been doing some more reading, now people are saying that code cannot be rescinded. If this is true, then I see no practical problems with this new CoC.

[Rancid]

Nothing to worry about!

https://www.itwire.com/open-source/84683-linux-code-contributions-cannot-be-rescinded-stallman.html

Linux is safe after all!

[pugsville]

You do retain copy right, unless you specifically, give / sell it away. I think in some legal jurisdictions its illegal to sell your copy right. The point is that if someone breaks copy right you can sue them. This is the sword of Damocles hanging over Linux. Tens of thousands of developers have a copy right interest in the Linux kernel, hence anyone of them can potentially sue any Linux user. .

No this is a misunderst6anding on how licenses work.

Meanwhile the big corporations love Linux. Amazon, Facebook et al might be running Linux on their servers, whoopy do, how exactly does that help us? do you see their source code? When it comes to Desktop Microsoft and Apple totally dominate, and Android the one mass user market where Linux dominates is an absolute joke as an open source system. The GPL is totally restrictive for the small user, but totally permissive where it matters for the big corporations. Richard Stallman is a demented ideologue, who deliberately writes bad software, at least with Clang there's another area that we no longer have to put up with his crap.

Large companies ignore legal restrictions. Yup but that's a problem with the legal system,.

What practical restriction does GPL impose on a small user?

[Negotiator]

All else ain't equal, and neither are men and women. Until these fools are lobbying for equal numbers of men and women in prison, they need to STFU about the unequal numbers of men and women anywhere else.

Are you by any chance unaware that women commit far less crimes than men ?

[Hong Wu]

I wonder how Linux is going to fare in the long run when SJWs are removing some of the top talents for not being PC enough on a message board or Twitter or something.

[Rancid]

I wonder how Linux is going to fare in the long run when SJWs are removing some of the top talents for not being PC enough on a message board or Twitter or something.

I think it will be ok overall.

There are a ton of top talent that aren't assholes.

[Rich]

No this is a misunderst6anding on how licenses work.

No I don't misunderstand, but I was perhaps inaccurate when I said user, as I meant distributor, although distributor could just mean sharing a GPLed torrent file. If you have copy right over source code issued under GPL, you can potentially sue anyone who distributes a modified version, because there are so many potential ways a distributor can fail to comply with its provisions.[/quote]

What practical restriction does GPL impose on a small user?

They can't protect their IP if for example they are a small Indy game producer or wish to sell other closed source software.

Are you by any chance unaware that women commit far less crimes than men ?

Women commit far less to open source full stop. If you check the commit record for any major open source project, in as far as you can establish gender the majority are by men.

[foxdemon]

I think it will be ok overall.

There are a ton of top talent that aren't assholes.

The problem is the SJWs will replace talented arseholes with untalented arseholes. And those untalented arseholes will have power over the top talent you mention.

When it comes to socialism, anyone who can will leave.