It’s more nuanced than that. I would characterize a significant portion of FLOSS philosophy and participants as “libertarianism” (in the US politics sense).
On LGBTQ issues, they seem to be compatible with “gay and communism”, but a litmus test would be whether a member would support the use of FLOSS for
Large companies’ profits (e.g. AWS)
Military suppliers (e.g. Palantir, Anduril)
Interpreting the licences in their literal text would mean that the above are not only allowed, but in fact part of the “liberty” the license aims to protect.
The tragedy is that lots of “gay and communism” participants will find themselves betrayed by the libertarian elements once an actual choice appears in reality, such as when people try to “patch” the movement with Code of Conduct.
The problem, in my opinion, roots in the tendencies of the founding members towards “tech neutrality”. This is turn is a result of the US hippie movement’s ideology of “no ideology”.
It’s more nuanced than that. I would characterize a significant portion of FLOSS philosophy and participants as “libertarianism” (in the US politics sense).
On LGBTQ issues, they seem to be compatible with “gay and communism”, but a litmus test would be whether a member would support the use of FLOSS for
Interpreting the licences in their literal text would mean that the above are not only allowed, but in fact part of the “liberty” the license aims to protect.
The tragedy is that lots of “gay and communism” participants will find themselves betrayed by the libertarian elements once an actual choice appears in reality, such as when people try to “patch” the movement with Code of Conduct.
The problem, in my opinion, roots in the tendencies of the founding members towards “tech neutrality”. This is turn is a result of the US hippie movement’s ideology of “no ideology”.