Open Source Doesn’t Mean More Apps And Better Apps


A generation ago, Microsoft founder Bill Gates offered his ideas on how to create better, more useful, writing software. a painful letter to the “players” who shared in his company’s BASIC program: “Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What fun-loving person would put three years of human experience into programming, finding all the bugs, writing what they did, and distributing them for free? The fact is, no one else but us has invested so much in the sport. ”

Nowadays there is another type of hybrid machine, where technology giants like Google, Facebook, etc. are a great support for the free Linux software, which is still essential for their businesses. Instead, 75 percent of the offerings on Linux come from developers working for companies. The system has made these companies very rich, and their role is great. They’re not afraid of a small start to unlock them using Linux — how they removed Microsoft. Even Microsoft has changed its mind. Company President Brad Smith said last year that “Microsoft was on the wrong side of history when the open source exploded at the turn of the century, and I can only say this for myself. The good news is that, if life is long enough, you can learn … that you should change. ”

This success, however, has brought about a major change: A project that was originally supposed to help younger players is now introducing a bigger one. It is a change of knowledge that the community should not consider again. This is because when it comes to the program itself, everything goes smoothly. But beyond writing articles, free software has always worked. On important questions such as how to make social networking sites safer for women or teens or to create a meaningful argument or to spread accurate information, free programs have not changed things at all – instead, it has been helpful, as Mastodon did. Social Truth.

In this sense, free software includes a list of “free” items – including markets and communications – that seek to solve problems by opening doors. With enough eyes for all the bugs and shallow, thinking goes, when the answer to bad speech is to talk too much, and people who put freedom before equality will receive the highest degree of both. Of course, these free ideas work best for their own ends, that is, to produce more resources or speeches or programs.

When Rochko first discovered that Gab was using Mastodon in 2019, it led to a major search. He did his best to isolate Gab from other networks that use the app. One user of mastodon.social, a social networking site run by the Mastodon project, was pressed to hear more, he says, “I wonder how it is possible to have a LICENSE that explicitly prohibits its use in hate speech.” Rochko’s answer he was missing. He further added that in the process, he failed to obtain contracts from the 600 funders at the time, so he needed everyone’s approval to change the license, and he also wanted the software’s free program – “if it violates AGPLv3, there are several established organizations that want to protect it. cultural authorization does not benefit from it. “

What is the purpose of the license if it does not meet your expectations – to stop Donald Trump from using it to incite hatred and oppose democracy? We will not have the opportunity to see programs as a sport, taken away from reality. Code in one corner, another hate. If the past few years have taught us anything, it is that the two cannot separate.

The old question, led by the use of Mastodon for Gab, should be reconsidered: Why not get permission to ban hatred? Or those who insist on using computer software for evil purposes, such as money laundering and hate? In discussions with free software developers, I have granted permission for non-commercial use. This preparation can solve the Truth Social problem in minutes. And for a group of free software, it can be an important part of realizing how the code looks in the world.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.