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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
dec05eba said:
I've personally needed to do 6 million hacks for my application to work on wayland as well, even with xwayland. And it still cant work properly and on some wayland compositors it cant work at all. It has to rely on undefined behaviors in each wayland compositor and also bypass wayland and access linux apis (sometimes with root access). If the application were to be a native wayland application it wouldn't work at all.
This is intentional in the wayland protocol. My application will never be able to work properly on wayland.
Click to expand...
Going back and reading this now with the context of what your application is. It makes a lot of sense. I do think what you are working on by it's nature does make it one of the more difficult things to do within the framework that is wayland.

If people are just making something like a graphical file manager, or some other random application that happens to have a gui I think it will generally be a lot easier, and shouldn't require the kind of hacks you needed.

But your application is definitely doing something that kind of touches on waylands weakest points. It's one of the many areas that have been frustratingly neglected. I'm sure it could easily be solved, but the freedesktop people would have to stop acting like stuck up faggots for once, and try to find a solution. Instead of doing the same nitpicky "what is the use-case" bikeshedding wayland developement has come to be known for over the years.

For me wayland is so frustrating because it really doesn't seem to be held back by anything technical (even if you can point out technical flaws in how they chose to handle things), it's held back by the people working on it seemingly disregarding what people that are using it NOW want/need from their computer. Also all the politics shit they shove into it for no reason is really gay and annoying.
 
prollyanotherlurker said:
For me wayland is so frustrating because it really doesn't seem to be held back by anything technical (even if you can point out technical flaws in how they chose to handle things), it's held back by the people working on it seemingly disregarding what people that are using it NOW want/need from their computer. Also all the politics shit they shove into it for no reason is really gay and annoying.
Click to expand...
And the things they do try and get working are all done patchwork hacky quick fixes by whatever DE
 
XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG said:
I honestly don't care
Being consistently against anonymity on the Internet is a dealbreaker, and Lunduke is consistently against anonymity on the Internet
Click to expand...
Besides that age verification thing, I didn't know he was in general against anonymity. Sad. I do still think it is good he presents the issues of Linux committees. You dont have to agree with him completely.

The claim that Lunduke is "one of the good ones" was kind of exagrated on my part, but I meant to say he is not subversive as many others.
 
i440BX said:
but I meant to say he is not subversive as many others.
Click to expand...
I also really, really don't like his stance on anonymity. But I can get over it mostly because there are some people that I disagree with that about, that mostly agree with me on everything else. I see them as either misinformed on why it's important, or that they just don't understand the implications of what they are saying. Others I think are actively malicious in their intentions, but that really depends on the type of person it is.

The problem I see with Lunduke, is that he actually is very subversive. I've pointed it out in a lot of the criticisms I've made about him on these threads. Outside of the criticisms I've made about his stance on anonymity/pseudonymity. He does criticize "woke" politics in the linux and FOSS community, and other problems that are happening around tech. Which is great. The problem is how he goes about it. It's the way he decides to editorialize everything. And the way he selectively choses to report facts.

To clarify what I mean. I have absolutely no problem with him editorializing on a story as he reports it. It's the way he choses to editorialize things. He ads an absolutely insane amount of spin to the point where it's a borderline lie onto every story. It seems pretty likely he wants to cause more problems in the linux/FOSS space, because he directly benifits from it. It doesn't come off as someone who really cares about open source software. It comes off as someone that wants to cause problems because it gets him viewers, and money. It's the same thing with the way he selectively shows facts in the stories he covers. And that's even more obvious, he will pick, and choose things that make a story look as bad as possible, or to fit as closely to his narrative as possible, because it will benifit him.

If you ask me, that is very subversive. If he didn't do that, I would be all for Lunduke. Unfortunately it seems like he can't help himself. I'm just surpised more people don't see it for what it is.
 
Is there anyone here that actually does like lunduke?

Because up until very recently his videos were posted here religiously. Maybe he hasn't uploaded, either way I'm glad it's stopped because i found him insufferable. He's no different than a fag like brodie, just on the other side of the fence and neither are in any way watchable.
 
prollyanotherlurker said:
To clarify what I mean. I have absolutely no problem with him editorializing on a story as he reports it. It's the way he choses to editorialize things. He ads an absolutely insane amount of spin to the point where it's a borderline lie onto every story. It seems pretty likely he wants to cause more problems in the linux/FOSS space, because he directly benifits from it. It doesn't come off as someone who really cares about open source software. It comes off as someone that wants to cause problems because it gets him viewers, and money. It's the same thing with the way he selectively shows facts in the stories he covers. And that's even more obvious, he will pick, and choose things that make a story look as bad as possible, or to fit as closely to his narrative as possible, because it will benifit him.

If you ask me, that is very subversive. If he didn't do that, I would be all for Lunduke. Unfortunately it seems like he can't help himself. I'm just surpised more people don't see it for what it is.
Click to expand...
I don't think he is as subversive than the pozzed linux devs who replace GPL licenses with MIT ones, want infinite Rust re-writes, shit the open source projects while also working at Microsoft, RedHat, corporations who show signs of using Embrace Extend Extinguish.

I dont lose my time listening to his videos, thry are too long. Instead, I just look at his xeets on nitter. I do agree that you have to be a sucker to pay him when he mostly finds info from this thread or hacker news or twitter.

What raised my interested in him is that he is one of the few who supported Xlibre, raising awareness about the change in licensing. I dont share his hate on Rust that much, but I am concerned by the dogmatic desire to rewrite everything and ditch gpl license.

If he was actually subversive, I think he would promote corporate interests of RedHat, Microsoft. I doubt Lunduke works for them.
 
i440BX said:
I don't think he is as subversive than the pozzed linux devs who replace GPL licenses with MIT ones, want infinite Rust re-writes, shit the open source projects while also working at Microsoft, RedHat, corporations who show signs of using Embrace Extend Extinguish.

I dont lose my time listening to his videos, thry are too long. Instead, I just look at his xeets on nitter. I do agree that you have to be a sucker to pay him when he mostly finds info from this thread or hacker news or twitter.

What raised my interested in him is that he is one of the few who supported Xlibre, raising awareness about the change in licensing. I dont share his hate on Rust that much, but I am concerned by the dogmatic desire to rewrite everything and ditch gpl license.

If he was actually subversive, I think he would promote corporate interests of RedHat, Microsoft. I doubt Lunduke works for them.
Click to expand...
I gave my opinion on what I think his motivation is. He wants people to react to his stories, so he covers them in as inflamitory a way as possible. Purposefully presenting things in a misleading way because obviously it will make the people involved mad, it also makes the story more interesting for people that just watch his videos, or read his articles uncritically. So it benefits him to basically have no journalistic integrity. He wins when FOSS loses.

But if it was going to speculate on this a bit more freely, and ignore all of that. If he just wanted to be subversive in the sense of helping microsoft, or one of the other corporations you mentioned. He very literally has worked for a lot of them in the past. I don't think he is trying to hurt open source projects for their gainz but I don't think it would be that unreasonable to say what he does might help out companies that don't want a strong FOSS ecosystem.

Adding fuel to the identity politics fire going on just makes the whole thing worse not betting. Neither side are going to change their mind on those issues. The best bet as far as I'm concerned is having people put their differences aside, and work together. But their is absolutely no way anyone will want to do that if people are constantly shit stirring about this stuff. Because both sides will just blame each other for causing the problems.

And of course I think the problem stems from the lgbt antifa commies, infesting everything, it wasn't both sides that started this stuff by any means. But on some level it is on both sides for continuing it. Obviously people like Drew Devault will never be reasonable, and work with others without doing his retarded nazi bar gay callout blog.

My point is really that the kind of shit flinging from our side hasn't given us any actual wins that I can think of. It just keeps making things more hostile. Same goes for what they do. (Well they did get some "wins", in the sense that for like a year or two trannies got their way and ruined everything).

I'm trying to put my finger on the right way to say what I'm thinking here. I don't want it to seem like I'm saying we shouldn't care about the CoC trannies fucking up everything, and nobody should try calling them out or stopping them. And I'm not saying they aren't the root of the problem. It's more that I feel like the opposition to them has kind of made things worse in it's own way. I feel like people should rethink what the best way to deal with this is.
 
Last edited:
Dante Alighieri said:
I want to make sure I understand things properly, what's the major difference between the two? I know it's something about corporate entities being forced to "give back", right?
Click to expand...
MIT is an attribution license that requires derivative works to include the license, GPL is a restrictive license that requires all derivative works to be free software (as defined by the terms of the GPL).
 
Dante Alighieri said:
I want to make sure I understand things properly, what's the major difference between the two? I know it's something about corporate entities being forced to "give back", right?
Click to expand...
To exapnd on above, any license usually allows one to sell your software or services, but BSD/MIT either require nothing in return or a general acknowledgement, wile (A)GPL require that you release the source code under the terms of itself. You can sometimes notice that with some SaaSes, where they will have a link to GitHub hidden somewhere in the footer that has the code and barebones instructions at how to run stuff. This is why (A)GPL is seen as an infection, once a piece of code licensed under it enters your project, your project in its entirety must be shared under (A)GPL. And with some projects you can see exceptions introduced, like Linux kernel, so you can keep your "derivative" closed-source, but link against a GPL library as long as it's distributed separately. There's also stuff like Apache and MPL that are kind of a middle ground too, of course, but BSD and GPL are kind of opposite ends of the permissive/copyleft spectrum.
 
As to why someone would choose one license over another, GNU has an article that explains their perspective: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
In short, they recommend:
  • Using the GNU GPL v3 or later in almost all cases since it does the most to advance the cause of free software.
  • If you are modifying existing free software you should use the original license to facilitate cooperation with the original developer unless your modifications improve it significantly and the original is permissive/non-copyleft because this is how to best advance the cause of free software.
  • If you are writing a small program (they say 300 lines or less) you should release it under a permissive license, preferably the Apache License 2.0 since copyleft licenses are very long and it would provide a significant inconvenience to users to include them in such works. They prefer Apache since it explicitly forbids competitors from suing you for patent violations, and so it puts you in a safer position than any other permissive license.
  • If you are releasing a library, there are three cases, either you are
    • trying to proliferate a new free standard (such as WebM or Ogg Vorbis) and so you should use a permissive license to maximize its chance to defeat proprietary standards
    • or you are releasing a library that competes against existing libraries and so you should use the LGPL v3 or later to advance the cause of free software by promoting proprietary software to make use of it while forcing modifications to be free and spread the idea of free software and copyleft
    • or you are making a library which is significantly better than other options and so you should use the GPL v3 or later since you already have the competitive advantage and the stronger copyleft will cause "at least one" program to be free.
  • If your program is likely to be used as a service without distributing copies to users ("service as a substitute for software") then you should use the AGPL.
From a non-GNU perspective:
  • The Mozilla Public License seeks to do for normal programs what the LGPL does for libraries, it is a copyleft license but allows copies and derivatives to be included in non-free software as long as the copy or derivation is separated from the non-free software as a distinct file. I've also heard that it's easier to understand than the GNU GPL, and so some may choose it for that reason.
  • The GNU GPL v2 allows tivoization, which is the use of GPL licensed software in DRM locked hardware such as the iPhone or Tivo's tv boxes. If you do not care much about free software, and think that the derivations made for use in a tivoized product will benefit you, you may choose GPL v2. Alternatively, you may believe that it's immoral to prevent users of your software from making DRM locked hardware.
  • Other licenses with name recognition, such as Creative Commons or the MIT license may be chosen simply because the author of that software is familiar with them.
  • A permissive license may be chosen because the author does not care much about free software and wants their program to be as widely used as possible, or alternatively because they simply don't want to include such a long license file.
  • The +NIGGER ("plusNIGGER") modifying clause may be added to a license to release free software while effectively limiting the users of the software (ie excluding corporate use and leftist use). The clause should only be added to licenses which require license file redistribution, since it would cause the +NIGGER clause to have real legal significance. Of course, any similar clause could exist such as +HATENIGGERS or whatever.
  • A non-free software license, such as the Creative Commons license with the Noncommercial or No Derivatives clauses may be used for a similar reason, such as Duckstation's dev being angry at Retroarch.
  • Alternatively, the "no-license" strategy is used by some people for the same reason. Basically, "I reserve the right to sue anyone for using my program without permission" while releasing the program publicly, signaling to ordinary people that it's okay for them to use it, while scaring off commercial use.
  • Finally, someone may just feel quirky and want to use a license of their own making or a funny license like the Beerware license
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom