RMS: GitHub has done terrible harm to our community

Post by hacknat » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #91

wichert wrote: post #7

There is some awful stuff in that thread, like this gem [1]: After microsoft puchased Github, they encouraged "Codes of Conduct". So now 40k "opensource projects" hace CoC's. Obviously men won't be contributing to said projects, other than the people allready in them. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2019-1...

Take a look, for example, at the "contributor covenant", which github endorses [1]. It lists as its first example of unacceptable behavior: > The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind This is a perfect example of rules that are simply too broad. Say I write a comment `//normalize file path because fuck windows`. I said fuck; does this count as "sexualized language"? Do I…

Post by papermachete » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #102

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before codes of conduct, it was reasonably common for misogynistic men to get away with poor behaviour towards women in their communities “because they write good code”. And now they're just as misogynistic, but we don't get to enjoy their code. They're also hidden from view so it's less likely that someone is going to tell them to cut the crap and maybe re-evaluate their world-view. They've essentially been shoved…

> And now they're just as misogynistic, but we don't get to enjoy their code. I'd rather get the code of all the women who were driven out of tech by their bigotry and hate than whatever they'd write, even if it was legendary golden code spewed forth from the fount of all wisdom.

Post by devnonymous » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #107

devnonymous wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here let me be even more clear for the downvoting-without-commenting cowards : > It's a wretched, insidious *code* sneaked in by very bad > actors into mainstream open source repositories. How would have OSS projects historically dealt with code pushed by someone, which was deemed detrimental/inferior to the overall intent and purpose of the software ? Isn't it the presumption that whatever gets absorbed / pulled in,…

These people said they won't contribute to a project with a CoC, which is exactly what you say they should do. So what is the point of your post? They are already following your advice!

Post by viraptor » Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #87

viraptor wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people "know" not to steal. Yet we need to have laws so we agree on rules and boundaries. You can think of it like a list of rules agreed on early, so the project leaders don't have to go through the arguments about what's accepted after someone crosses one person's boundaries, but not another's.

The core principle of laws is that they are common and enforced equally onto every citizen. Laws and enforcement are transparent and has check and balances. The most common objection to CoC is that they are not enforced equally. Different classes of people get treated differently and enjoy different rights. The enforcement have no transparency and no check and balances. To take two recent well known examples, we had…

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Fri, Nov 29, 2019, 7:10 AM UTC

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #35

ZiiS wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He makes what I consider a valid point that a license should be compulsory or if missing more clearly highlighted. He also makes a point that you cannot select "GPLv3 or latter" which is the licence GNU recommends.

But you can still use any license you want. The ones he's talking about are just sugestions by github, but you can put anything you want in that ./LICENSE file