I read the article and the comments. Still no clue about what’s going on.
How can a coded program be politically incorrect?
It mostly concerns controlling the developers interactions with each other but amazingly they’ll also try to POZ the code itself. Like for example incompetent coders get a free pass if they’re a minority and terms like master and slave will get renamed because someone got butt hurt over it.
Discussions surrounding software development may be socially...imperfect. Highly skilled/motivated developers can often be coarser, rude, or even polite & precise in ways that disturb others. Extremely productive people often are intolerant of anything that hinders productivity, including the behavior of others. The less productive sometimes perceive this intolerance as rude, not realizing that extreme productivity requires culling anything which hinders productivity - like health issues, or IQ, or cultural norms.
It can't. But if the software developer ever says something politically incorrect, then they will wipe all acknowledgements of his contributions.
People do software development for Linux for the status and glory of getting your stuff included in official linux. That's their only payment. So if you ever say anything that gets a protected class butthurt, then you become an unperson as far as any credit, status, or glory in the Linux community.
Social justice warriors got a code of conduct approved that says all programmers have to obey SJW mandates.
That meritocracy no longer determines who contributes - adherence and political correctness now determine who is promoted and who is excluded.
There is no boundary between project discussions, private discussions and public postings on social media. If someone posts a politically incorrect opinion on Facebook, an SJW can run to the Linux decision makers, say I’m offended/threatened, and in theory get people kicked off projects. And that’s not really a theory.
Firefox’s creator got kicked out of his own company for donating money to the traditional marriage fight a decade ago. A major developer got kicked out of another project a few years ago because he’s a Gor fan. Social justice outweighs diversity, so conservatives are getting openly discriminated against in Big Tech ... and now can be hounded out of Linux development for “hate speech”, AKA, posting conservative opinions.
Female Entrepreneur Says Google’s ‘Women in Tech’ Program Ostracized Her for Being Conservative
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/12/09/female-entrepreneur-says-googles-women-in-tech-program-ostracized-her-for-being-conservative/
I believe this woman’s story because I dealt with the same thing elsewhere for the same reasons.
It will certainly lead to women and people of color screaming bigotry when criticized, and we’ll end up with people demanding others fix their issues or else be hounded out.
And no matter how much time you dedicate to a project, no matter how much work you contribute, if you’re hounded out, you’re blacklisted. It is a black mark on your reputation, you can’t get credit and kudos.
It's not about the program. It's about the programmer.
There are lots of programmers actively developing extensions, drivers, applications, etc. for Linux. If they violate the new CC CoC, they can be banned from the Linux community.
Here's the kill switch. Most versions of Linux kernals (the core of the OS) is built on an older version (GPL 2) under which the original programmer still holds the copyright to their addition to Linux.
So, if enough of the original developers band together and decide to act en mass to order Linux to remove their code, the Linux world would be shut down because no one would be able to run a version of copyrighted code without exposing themselves to a lawsuit.
The cost for the world to shut down their operations while a suitable replacement is implemented would be incalculable.
A different quote from Linustechtips.com
The CoC adopted by the Linux Kernel team is called the “Contributor Covenant”.
The problem with this is that the author of this CoC of it has spent a considerate amount of time tracking down developers, looking through their history and then if she does not like them (for example if they have differing political views than her) she has gotten them banned from projects.
Basically, if you for example mentioned on Twitter that you voted for Trump, she might track that down and get you banned from working on certain open source projects. Here are some examples of similar things happening (people getting banned from projects because of things they did on their private accounts.
Would you want a group you tied your professional reputation to being able to ruin your resume, your career and your life for private opinions or one’s political views?
All while the vague code of conduct leaves plenty of room for “you’re a meanie, you’re an evil bigot, let’s ruin your life but keep your work” ...
Hence the threat to pull one’s code.
They're not going after the code, they're going after the programmers. If the coders say anything un-PC, then they can be disciplined. Since there is no mention of the code they contribute, I am guessing they assume they can keep the code.
I think they'll be in for a rude awakening.
Not the program...the programmer. The guy who invented JavaScript worked at Netscape/Mozilla. He was driven out by the LGBTQ hard left inside the company. Where would the net be if he chose to withdraw rights to use JavaScript and any derivatives in response to being forced out of his employment by the social justice pukes? When software is written, a competent author applies a copyright and license statement at the top of each file. That copyright and license carries a level of risk to anyone who uses the software or derivative works. The author retains the right to withdrawn authorization for use. If that code is in the guts of your critical corporate application, you'll have to excise it, provide written proof that you have done so and engage in writing a suitable replacement to rescue your application. I've been on many projects where the management was unwilling to risk the exposure and opted to write an "in house" equivalent.