7 ms·

If developers are afraid, they will be tempted to program a solution for censorship-resistant hosting of open source software that additionally allows to contri

If developers are afraid, they will be tempted to program a solution for censorship-resistant hosting of open source software that additionally allows to contribute anonymously (not just pseudonymously).

skyde 6y ago
the problem is lot of the incentive to contribute for free is the name recognition. Lot of dev see it as a way to show what they can do (portfolio) because that can’t share the code they produce at work
- wolfgke 6y ago
  Is is good for name recognition if you contribute to software of somewhat dubious legal status such as youtube-dl?
  - sebastien_b 6y ago
    “Dubious legal status” defined by whom? All GitHub got was a take down request (which they were required to act on), not proof of anything being illegal (which requires a court case to prove)
    - mr_toad 6y ago
      > Dubious legal status” defined by whom? A potential employer.
      - sebastien_b 6y ago
        A potential employer doing that will open themselves up to some serious legal problems. "Oh, you committed code to a repo I consider dubious though nothing proven... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". "Oh, you shop at a store run by a non-white person.... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". "Oh, you follow a religion, but I'm atheist... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". ... the list goes on.
        wernercd 6y ago
        Show where in the list of protected classes (race, sex, ethnicity, etc) "your choice of programming projects" is covered? Two of those are protected classes... the third one isn't.
        sebastien_b 6y ago
        Show on the list where youtube-dl has been proven illegal. Implying criminality because you're participating on something "of dubious legality" defined nebulously ("guilt by association") wouldn't play well.
        jhomedall 6y ago
        As per the post you are replying to, choice of programming project is, unlike race and religion, not a protected class. It is perfectly legal in the US for a company to discriminate based on it. A company could also freely and legally discriminate based on whether or not you prefer whole-wheat bread. That's not a protected class. It doesn't matter that whole-wheat bread is legal.
        johnny_b_g 6y ago
        I think you guys are conflating this with what the poster is getting at, which based on what was said ("implying criminality"), is more akin to defamation (though admittedly the choice of earlier examples is poor). If, as an employer, I decide that because you chose a specific project (or political party, or brand of motor bike, etc. anything whose association has potential 'dubious legal status') that you're part of a criminal organization (and hence a criminal, or any other description that might be undesirable/harmful) because of that and don't hire you, that may put me at risk. Obviously there would be a legal bar to meet from that, not the least of which would be proving that it was intentional to defame the person, and resulted in actual damages to that person (i.e. proper standing - would not getting the job be enough?) IDK IANAL, but I sure AF wouldn't want to be the trailblazer for finding out (like IBM is right now).
  - arpa 6y ago
    Youtube-dl has a lot of legal applications!
    - wolfgke 6y ago
      Indeed it has. But the DMCA takeout request nevertheless shows that the legality of the youtube-dl itself is not clear.
- zimbatm 6y ago
  That's only true for high-profile projects. Projects like YouTube-dl are usually born out of passion, and the best kind of projects.
  - dmix 6y ago
    Yep, plenty of tools in the infosec world on github and elsewhere are published by anonymous developers. Plus when you use an anonymous name and get a popular project out of it, you still get recognition. Even if it's not publicly in your name. You'll still feel good about contributing to the world.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Wait, that's just Git with extra steps
- wolfgke 6y ago
  > Wait, that's just Git with extra steps But the extra steps are not completely trivial to do right if strong anonymity has to be ensured.

skyde 6y ago

the problem is lot of the incentive to contribute for free is the name recognition. Lot of dev see it as a way to show what they can do (portfolio) because that can’t share the code they produce at work

wolfgke 6y ago
Is is good for name recognition if you contribute to software of somewhat dubious legal status such as youtube-dl?
- sebastien_b 6y ago
  “Dubious legal status” defined by whom? All GitHub got was a take down request (which they were required to act on), not proof of anything being illegal (which requires a court case to prove)
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    > Dubious legal status” defined by whom? A potential employer.
    - sebastien_b 6y ago
      A potential employer doing that will open themselves up to some serious legal problems. "Oh, you committed code to a repo I consider dubious though nothing proven... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". "Oh, you shop at a store run by a non-white person.... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". "Oh, you follow a religion, but I'm atheist... hmmm not sure I'll hire you". ... the list goes on.
      - wernercd 6y ago
        Show where in the list of protected classes (race, sex, ethnicity, etc) "your choice of programming projects" is covered? Two of those are protected classes... the third one isn't.
        sebastien_b 6y ago
        Show on the list where youtube-dl has been proven illegal. Implying criminality because you're participating on something "of dubious legality" defined nebulously ("guilt by association") wouldn't play well.
        jhomedall 6y ago
        As per the post you are replying to, choice of programming project is, unlike race and religion, not a protected class. It is perfectly legal in the US for a company to discriminate based on it. A company could also freely and legally discriminate based on whether or not you prefer whole-wheat bread. That's not a protected class. It doesn't matter that whole-wheat bread is legal.
        johnny_b_g 6y ago
        I think you guys are conflating this with what the poster is getting at, which based on what was said ("implying criminality"), is more akin to defamation (though admittedly the choice of earlier examples is poor). If, as an employer, I decide that because you chose a specific project (or political party, or brand of motor bike, etc. anything whose association has potential 'dubious legal status') that you're part of a criminal organization (and hence a criminal, or any other description that might be undesirable/harmful) because of that and don't hire you, that may put me at risk. Obviously there would be a legal bar to meet from that, not the least of which would be proving that it was intentional to defame the person, and resulted in actual damages to that person (i.e. proper standing - would not getting the job be enough?) IDK IANAL, but I sure AF wouldn't want to be the trailblazer for finding out (like IBM is right now).
- arpa 6y ago
  Youtube-dl has a lot of legal applications!
  - wolfgke 6y ago
    Indeed it has. But the DMCA takeout request nevertheless shows that the legality of the youtube-dl itself is not clear.
zimbatm 6y ago
That's only true for high-profile projects. Projects like YouTube-dl are usually born out of passion, and the best kind of projects.
- dmix 6y ago
  Yep, plenty of tools in the infosec world on github and elsewhere are published by anonymous developers. Plus when you use an anonymous name and get a popular project out of it, you still get recognition. Even if it's not publicly in your name. You'll still feel good about contributing to the world.

kmeisthax 6y ago

Wait, that's just Git with extra steps

wolfgke 6y ago
> Wait, that's just Git with extra steps But the extra steps are not completely trivial to do right if strong anonymity has to be ensured.