Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

[The Noise]

It is yiddish subversion. Unlike the GNU Coreutils, Ubuntu's rust version uses a much more permissive and corporate-friendly MIT license, which is of benefit to no one but their pedophile rapist protecting overlords in Canonical et al.; licensing arguments, like everything else in programming, come down to one key question: is this niggerlicious or is this divine intellect? When you see Rust/MIT, especially in rewrite contexts, rest assured that it is 100% section-8 slum tier niggerdry.

I used to be pretty neutral towards MIT until I browsed a few open source microsoft repos and I saw all their shit was either licensed under MIT or some other similar permissive license.

I really don't understand the hate that trannies have for GPL. Is it just that they want to spite the idea of copyleft completely because Stallman was involved in it?

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

I used to be pretty neutral towards MIT until I browsed a few open source microsoft repos and I saw all their shit was either licensed under MIT or some other similar permissive license.

I really don't understand the hate that trannies have for GPL. Is it just that they want to spite the idea of copyleft completely because Stallman was involved in it?

When I have talked to people (more like argued) about mit vs gpl. It seems like a lot of people are literally taking these companies side. I've gotten responses like "all the companies I have worked for wouldn't touch gpl licensed software with a 10 foot pole", to which my response is usually something along the lines of, "good fuck them."

It's that and other responses about sometimes having something like the mit license makes sense. Which i will concede, it does make sense in certain situations. But it seems like overall a lot of the people I see in open source, that are anti-GPL are some level of corporate shill.

 

[GNU Abyss]

I used to be pretty neutral towards MIT until I browsed a few open source microsoft repos and I saw all their shit was either licensed under MIT or some other similar permissive license.

I really don't understand the hate that trannies have for GPL. Is it just that they want to spite the idea of copyleft completely because Stallman was involved in it?

GPL is of no use to trannies, hate for Stallman is just incidental. Like testing out combinations of words that sound bad until you get a result that you want. All versions of the GPL license are designed to annoy corporations. What the rainbow people are doing is a march through computer-related institutions - same thing lefties did with universities in the 20th century. The best type of license to use is then MIT/BSD, because you are more corpo-friendly this way.

Once the aggressive beta test of coreutils (Rusted) in Ubuntu gets close to a final state, you can bet your ass it will get rolled out into Fedora and Arch at least. The cancer spreads further, as is the goal. The more influential this gay friend circle becomes over time, the easier it will be to push more projects and suggest hiring candidates that are "in".

 

[Coolio55]

Personally, I'm mad at the insidious way that Microsoft maintains free software with 0 strings attached. People really need to wake up to this instead of weening about them inserting DRM hardware into every new CPU (GPLv2 approved).

 

[AnOminous]

All maintainers should aggressively require including a patch to fix the issue and a test case at bare minimum. It has been virtually impossible to tell the difference between a contributor and a mooch for a long time; and with the ramp-up of lusers over the decades, the return of gatekeeping curmudgeons is necessary for any project's health.

There should be a rock solid rule that if you don't make substantive contributions to the codebase, you don't get to say shit about "Codes of Conduct" or other tranny bullshit.

 

[Creative Username]

I used to be pretty neutral towards MIT until I browsed a few open source microsoft repos and I saw all their shit was either licensed under MIT or some other similar permissive license.

I really don't understand the hate that trannies have for GPL. Is it just that they want to spite the idea of copyleft completely because Stallman was involved in it?

not really for that reason, they are brainrotted by "open source" and value mere adoption and mass code reuse over the overlapping but far more noble goal of free software

When I have talked to people (more like argued) about mit vs gpl. It seems like a lot of people are literally taking these companies side. I've gotten responses like "all the companies I have worked for wouldn't touch gpl licensed software with a 10 foot pole", to which my response is usually something along the lines of, "good fuck them."

It's that and other responses about sometimes having something like the mit license makes sense. Which i will concede, it does make sense in certain situations. But it seems like overall a lot of the people I see in open source, that are anti-GPL are some level of corporate shill.

that's because "open source" won hard. while this is quite nice for user freedom, it does not exactly achieve the same guarantees as free software
one of the things most people fail to realize is that while the venn diagram here might be almost a circle, free software and open source are extremely different things
open source is just about a development model where you develop software with the source code out in public, so that other people can fix your shit. people love it because it's nice and corpo-friendly and you get nice libraries that you can use in anything for free
free software is about being able to do absolutely anything you want with the software on your computer, i.e. right-to-repair on steroids. it's much more political than open source is and represents certain values (freedom) that are... inconvenient... for many corpos (which have a direct incentive and legal means to stomp on your personal freedom)

in general everybody with a functioning brain should be a free software supporter, and be oddly autistic about using the words "open source" without the scare quotes. rms might be extremely weird, but for some reason, he is proven right in his local subject matter over and over and over and over and over again. that isn't to say you should inherently distrust software that uses common open source licenses on their own though, because open source is a great treasure trove of high-quality free programs. you will just need to dispose of the proprietary libraries it links in and other typical "open source" lunacy first, and assuming you use a good distro, the package maintainer has already done this for you
just make sure that when you write programs yourself, they are free software released under the terms of the gnu general public license. also remember that "open source" is a whitewashed corporate shill version of free software, so make sure to enhance the visibility of free software by never confusing the two

for a far more elegant presentation see richard stallman's "why open source misses the point"

 

[Consigliere]

I really don't understand the hate that trannies have for GPL.

It's a career dead end to contribute to anything under anything GPL.
You can't weasel into a junior software engineer position if your entire portfolio is just radioactive project after radioactive project for corporate use.

Little do they know that OSS contributions on github mean zilch anyway and they are very unlikely to gain any job offers from slaving contributions - primarily due to a lack of a demand for a code monkey who's entire track record is coughing into rust rewrites and ffxiv sex mods.

GPL's propagation in general is very toxic to the concept of division and property by design, which makes it a large liability for both legal entities looking to keep their products proprietary/restrictively distributed and private persons like me who don't want retards and apes assimilating my work into their horrid abominations.

 

[Creative Username]

GPL's propagation in general is very toxic to the concept of division and property by design

yeah that would be a bad thing if programs were supposed to be property in the first place

private persons like me who don't want retards and apes assimilating my work into their horrid abominations

are you propriejeet archetype #6: the retard ape who has a very inflated view of himself as compared to other retard apes? i sincerely hope you are not one but this comment is quite concerning
regardless a strong variant of the gpl would provide strong protections (way stronger than gay cucked "open source" permissive licenses) against your work being assimilated into horrid abominations, since the average horrid abomination is a proprietary program

 

[The Noise]

It's a career dead end to contribute to anything under anything GPL.
You can't weasel into a junior software engineer position if your entire portfolio is just radioactive project after radioactive project for corporate use.

Retarded and spiritually Indian take. People hiring for junior roles care about skill, not license ideology. Do you think that a company I apply for is going to hire me based entirely on whether or not they can assimilate the projects I put on Github into their corporation?

Also, major corporations contribute to and use GPL-licensed tech all the time. Red Hat built a billion dollar business off of Linux. Linux is the basis for Android. Netflix uses ffmpeg to render and process video. So on and so forth.

 

[Angie Wormwood]

RHEL also employs a very large number of kernel and userspace maintainers.
You can hate RedHat an IBM if you want, but if you are a large customer and have a support contract with RHEL and have a kernel issue. Chances are that the guy eventually helping you sort it out is the maintainer for that kernel subsystem.

Yes, I've waxed lyrical about RH being good stewards (at least historically) of the open source community. The number of projects I've seen RH port patches to from their implementation (like FreeIPA -> IDM) is staggering. However the distance between the ticket-reviewer and the actual maintainer is high, both in hierarchy and technical skill. I've had to deal with multiple retarded Indians (redundant) at RH, particularly after IBM bought them, to get a problem fixed because of something busted. My last big blow-up with them resulted in a SLA breach of a severity 1 and a terrible response from the engineer, and after I talked to our account rep (keep in mind, we had a BIG site license -- dozens of thousands of dollars a year) I was basically shrugged off. That incident basically killed any desire I had to work with RH voluntarily in the future. My current job thankfully is pushing hard to open source, and I'm going to recommend we get to a community distro like Rocky or Alma instead if we need a RH-like.

The problem is that these are usually Fortune 100 companies with large expanses of RedHat. The escalation is still "eventually". They just don't seem to care any more.

See above.

 

[Consigliere]

the retard ape who has a very inflated view of himself

I value my 60 loc C programs very highly thank you for noticing.

People hiring for junior roles care about skill, not license ideology.

Because it’s not about license ideology, it’s about credit - credit used to get the foot in the door in with “you already use my software let me in” arguments down the line. The rust coreutils are MIT because tangentially it’s a no strings attached license which doesn’t obligate any third party who wants to use that piece of software to much other than the credit and inclusion of the license.

The jeet spirit is in the ability to shout “I made this” when desperately begging for a SE job of whatever startup took their small rust crate package.

Linux is the basis for Android

Horrid timing to mention this considering the current state of AOSP and how reluctant google is to give up sources at the moment.

 

[HootersMcBoobies]

IBM/RHEL is expensive and you can have legitimate issues with some business practises but their paid, and expensive, support is unmatched.

My rule is I should be able to fix the problem before RH does or I'm not doing my job correctly.

IBM support was always shit. Even if you work at a shop that has millions in agreements, every ticket will be "send me all your logs, your trace logs, turn on this debugging log in production .." and then three days later you fucking figure it out. If you discover some obscure kernel/hardware bug ... I don't think you'd get decent support even then. It'd have to go to the actual vendor (Intel has a massive open-source driver team in Portland, OR .. or they did .. might all be gone now).

I've also been at a shop with a multi-million dollar hard drive array that started rebuilding volumes and wiped a bunch of data. They did fly an engineer out for that, but there was nothing he could do.

the only true way to have a secure computer is to consciously design every part of it to be secure, every step of the way. this goes from the lowest-level security features (the operating system) up to completely safe interfaces for programs and libraries (and remember, never trust anybody's input more than you absolutely have to) and even up to system configuration defaults (it's good to fail safe) and up to admins (they need to know not to do retarded things) and users (the hardest part a lot of the time, they sure love falling for <NEW GAME> CRACK NO WEERUS.exe)

Have you heard of an operating system called STOP by BAE Systems? That's essentially what it is. It's probably obsolete with a lot of the added hardware security, but the OS is designed around program isolation and secure memory buffers.

Personally, I'm mad at the insidious way that Microsoft maintains free software with 0 strings attached. People really need to wake up to this

"Microsoft Github." I think it's important to always say "Microsoft" before "Github." Their purchase of Github has sucked up most of the open source landscape. Distributed git wasn't enough. The web interface had to be distributed too, and it wasn't. Some git forges have worked on Federation. Has anyone used Radicle? How well does it work? Federation looks like it's dead for Gitea.

I used to be pretty neutral towards MIT until I browsed a few open source microsoft repos and I saw all their shit was either licensed under MIT or some other similar permissive license.

I really don't understand the hate that trannies have for GPL. Is it just that they want to spite the idea of copyleft completely because Stallman was involved in it?

in general everybody with a functioning brain should be a free software supporter, and be oddly autistic about using the words "open source" without the scare quotes. rms might be extremely weird, but for some reason, he is proven right in his local subject matter over and over and over and over and over again.

Nearly everything new I write is AGPLv3. It's the license that pushed so much amazing stuff in the 90s/2000s back during the Freshmeat days, when Dice was the ultimate tech job search platform and Slashdot wasn't filled with faggots and tards.

 

[WhiteNight]

https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2025/10/NSF-funding-statement.html?m=1
Python faggots turning down funding because "do not break federal law" is apparently a blocker.

Follow-up on this: The Python Software Foundation (PSF) reports a surge in donations in the wake of their "courageous refusal" to accept federal money if it means abandoning DEI.

https://thenewstack.io/psf-gets-a-donor-surge-after-rejecting-anti-dei-federal-grant/

https://archive.is/Apwa7

However, scroll down, and you see that the amount is nowhere close to the $1.5 million they gave up:

“We’ve raised over $157,000,” including 295 new Supporting Members paying an annual $99 membership fee.

Hacker News discussion is ongoing, some of it surprisingly based. The current top comment reminds everyone of the Tim Peters suspension:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45867277

 

[Creative Username]

"Microsoft Github." I think it's important to always say "Microsoft" before "Github." Their purchase of Github has sucked up most of the open source landscape.

using github is a full admission that you don't give a single fuck about free software and like slaving for jewgle

Distributed git wasn't enough. The web interface had to be distributed too, and it wasn't. Some git forges have worked on Federation.

have you ever heard of the concept of a "mailing list"? it uses the federated email network as a reasonably efficient software development forge, with the git website itself being mostly read-only
you just make patches using your vcs interface and then send them over to the maintainer in an email, then he goes and merges them. genius shit
(yeah i know people really like their web2.0 slop, but i wanted to post the classic "haaawww haaawww look at the city slickers and their fancy german forges" mailing list sneeder argument)

Federation looks like it's dead for Gitea.

that's because gitea got bought out by some jeets or something and now it's dead
may i direct you to codeberg's forgejo fork?

Nearly everything new I write is AGPLv3. It's the license that pushed so much amazing stuff in the 90s/2000s

agplv3 wasn't around back then, but i assume you're referring to the gpl family in general when you say that (and mentioning that you specifically use the very strongest of the latest crop of gpl variants)

 

[Coolio55]

using github is a full admission that you don't give a single fuck about free software and like slaving for jewgle

Well shucks. It sure is a shame that all those people out there, developing free software accessable via open protocols and getting Microsoft to foot the bill for hosting just don't actually give a damn.

If only Bell Labs had licenced Unix under the SSPL (very popular at the time), this would've never happened.

 

[Creative Username]

developing free software accessable via open protocols and getting Microsoft to foot the bill for hosting

this sounds great until you realize that if you want to contribute you're going to have to make a fucking account on a gay big tech platform
hell even reading pull requests and things has you executing all sorts of funny nonfree javascript

just don't actually give a damn

and no they don't, because most of them are nodejeets doing it for free under the mit cuck license

this is the open source software community thread and by god i am going to shit on the open source software community

 

[skunt]

Follow-up on this: The Python Software Foundation (PSF) reports a surge in donations in the wake of their "courageous refusal" to accept federal money if it means abandoning DEI.
View attachment 8149714

https://thenewstack.io/psf-gets-a-donor-surge-after-rejecting-anti-dei-federal-grant/

https://archive.is/Apwa7

However, scroll down, and you see that the amount is nowhere close to the $1.5 million they gave up:


Hacker News discussion is ongoing, some of it surprisingly based. The current top comment reminds everyone of the Tim Peters suspension:
View attachment 8149723

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45867277

i hope people aren't sleeping on this because it's a banger post. the HN thread alone is fantastic

 

[Unimaginative Username]

Distributed git wasn't enough. The web interface had to be distributed too, and it wasn't.

There is a solution to that problem, and it's called Fossil.

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

Well shucks. It sure is a shame that all those people out there, developing free software accessable via open protocols and getting Microsoft to foot the bill for hosting just don't actually give a damn.

If only Bell Labs had licenced Unix under the SSPL (very popular at the time), this would've never happened.

As always. Its never free with these companies especially microsoft, YOU (or in this case your software) are/is the product.

All people are doing by hosting on github, is giving them content to train their various AI projects. And I wouldn't be surprised if they are getting paid in other ways that I don't know about.

 

[Fabio Socialist]

have you ever heard of the concept of a "mailing list"? it uses the federated email network as a reasonably efficient software development forge,

It sure would be nice if email was still reliably delivered, but the big providers, most notably Google of course, have all but guaranteed that your email might get through if you're sending from someplace that they consider Safe and Trustworthy. You don't even have to be running your own mail server to enjoy spam folders and black holes, stalker. Just use the wrong provider, the wrong domain, and you'll be left wondering for weeks until you give up and call them and ask if they got your email.

Of all the things Big Tech have fucked up, email might be the oldest, and it's one of the greatest losses to the Internet as a whole and to all of us.