"Are we supposed to start policing who is allowed or not allowed to use open-source and free software projects, which goes against these licenses themselves and their requirements?"FOSS lets anyone *use* your project, but you can (and should) have line...
-
"Are we supposed to start policing who is allowed or not allowed to use open-source and free software projects, which goes against these licenses themselves and their requirements?"
FOSS lets anyone *use* your project, but you can (and should) have lines on who you allow to *participate* in the project
-
I am absolutely not advocating that people should ban anyone who disagrees with them on anything, or whatever. Diversity, including some level of "viewpoint diversity", is valuable. But have some principles -- not all views are worthy of respect
-
Views that deliberately contradict the system in which you are operating can - and in my opinion should - be discarded as irrelevant to the system; furthermore, if someone insists on promulgating that view, they are not operating within the scope of the system as defined - and if they aren't going to participate within the system as defined, it's not only correct to exclude them, but necessary.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Clarifying: "views that deliberately contradict the system" are not disagreements; they are propositions that establish a different system.
An axiom of Rain's intent for the community contingent on Nextest is "people are equal"; this assumption underlies their treatment of the people who engage with the community.
A hypothetical white nationalist comes in with the axiom "people are not equal" which -defines a different community- than Rain does; it contradicts the underlying, established system, not the content -being developed-.
The 'views' are at the community-definition layer, and as such are about the definition of the community; they are not participatory -in- the community.