I am aware of it. But his software is being used by other people who create instances that don’t support his political and social views. I find it rather amusing.
I am aware of it. But his software is being used by other people who create instances that don’t support his political and social views. I find it rather amusing.
fizzle@quokk.au 16 hours ago
You’re welcome to be amused.
Lemmy aside, if a developer was a fascist, or paedophile, or murderer, would you use their software?
Paragone@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
So you hold that ReiserFS instantly became evil when Hans Reiser murdered his wife, even-though ReiserFS was a filesystem, developed by multiple people … too?
There is a Principle, which the US Marines hold to:
nazis made more-protective helmets for their troops?
Steal the design, don’t accept their doctrine.
Someone made a better truck than we did?
Steal the design, don’t accept their doctrine.
That’s an excellent paradigm: differentiate between the technology vs the ideology.
People who hold that ideology is the whole of reality … do profoundly-idiotic things like insist “you can’t impliment efficiency, because the last person who pushed it was a nazi”.
Using an ideologue’s software to displace ideology, absolutely is valid use.
Same with any technology, like the barter-replacement called “money”: some uses are evil, others good, & some turn it into a religion, & many insist that because some make it a religion, therefore it “inherently” is a religion, & no other relationship with it could ever be valid…
Same with the technology of a “business”, by incorporating it as a Public Benefit Company, & operating it that way, even-though other corporations are operating as anti-benefit/anti-public companies.
The technology is itself, the origin is itself: they are independently themselves.
As Torvalds identified, once you release something in GPL-2, the community can’t have it taken-away from them: it’s theirs.
_ /\ _
fizzle@quokk.au 13 hours ago
Text book straw man, well done.
As I said, a person’s work is tainted by their beliefs, or in this case actions. Reiser’s work is obviously “tainted” as you’ve mentioned it here in this context.
Whether or not a person should continue to use the file system he developed is of course something each individual needs to weigh and decide for themselves. I note however that Reiser is not publishing essays on the art of murdering ones wife, and did not develop his filesystem with the intent of using it to host a community of murderers.
As I also said, using the software is tacit support. It’s not possible to steal the design and reject the doctrine. If you use firefox or libreoffice you support mozilla and or the document foundation. If you drive a tesla that you bought second hand you support Elon Musk
tyler@programming.dev 10 hours ago
By that logic if you use any firefox derivative like Waterfox you also support Mozilla. So by using any browser in existence you support either Apple, Mozilla, or Google…
If you buy a Tesla second hand yes, you are supporting musk, because you increase the demand for his products. That is not the same for free products in open source software. It’s especially not free for downstream consumers. Increasing usage of Waterfox will actually decrease usage of Firefox and cause Mozilla to struggle. There’s no payment or replacement of a fixed good that needs to occur. Your logic is very off here.
Bazell@lemmy.zip 16 hours ago
If this is a good software(that doesn’t have spying or security flaws) and they give it for free, then yes. Why not? Person may be a garbage but their work can be good.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Because some people don’t like fascists/tankies to succeed at what they do. This shouldn’t need explaining.
fizzle@quokk.au 15 hours ago
Obviously, because using their software is tacit or implied support for that person.
How many millions of people would say they “support” mozilla when really the only support they provide is using the free software.
A person’s work is quite obviously tainted by their beliefs.
Paragone@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
In the minds of the politically-motivated, maybe.
Not all minds are politically-motivated.
The blunt fact that people are multidimensional, & some are high-integrity-in-work while being low-integrity-in-business, or are excellent-woodworkers-while-being-family-abusers … what a person is in 1 dimension oft has nothing to do with what they are in another.
Ideologues who insist otherwise are living within their ideology, not within actuality.
Spiders may creep many out, while their silk is one of the most astonishingly-awesome materials known.
their silk doesn’t itself creep people out…
but maybe ideologues hold that it has to be creepy because to them spiders themselves are creepy…
Cult-“thinking”.
_ /\ _