Richard Stallman is the reason I didn’t start contributing to open source (then called “free software”) in the 90s. I’m not the only one. He and his followers pushed out a whole generation of female developers, just at that critical time when open source adoption was widening.https://twitter.com/alicegoldfuss/status/993677847280562178 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @sarahmei
RMS is the reason open source exists at all so your logic is completely flawed
8 replies 4 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @Gianlucadfiore
Nope! Learn you some history. RMS is one of the reasons free software exists. Open source was a direct reaction to his toxicity, but didn’t manage to escape his shadow.
5 replies 4 retweets 133 likes -
Replying to @sarahmei @Gianlucadfiore
I'd rather say "open source" was a capitalist, corp-friendly reaction. The split was about copyleft ideology. Open source has its own toxic head in ESR.
1 reply 2 retweets 23 likes -
And yeah, ideologically, I do favour the strong copyleft, freedom for the masses, don't let capital steal our labour thing, RMS' toxicity nonwithstanding
2 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
Agreed: open source is mostly about freedom for devs & corps to reuse code, while free software is about freedom for *all users* and avoiding vendor lock-in. Let's just ditch the toxic people and keep the good ideas.
1 reply 4 retweets 15 likes -
Well, conundrum is: what if the "toxic people" have the best ideas? Ditching the person means also ditching the ideas he/she has
7 replies 2 retweets 2 likes
What if the toxic people drive away all the people who could have come up with even better ideas?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.