This whole argument usually goes something like: once upon a time, open source was a pure, objective meritocracy. Code was just a utility. Tools were neutral, like hammers or electricity. But now, the SJWs (there’s always venom in the way they say SJW lmao) are making software political and ruining the careful meritocracy by bringing in things like codes of conduct and bringing attention to problematic individuals within the projects.

I stopped reading here. Codes of conduct are not code - you don’t compile it and run it on your CPU. I can download and use software and never know anything about it having CoC or not. The code is neutral.

What’s not neutral is people and the way they organize. People can have agendas and opinions. Don’t join, contribute or donate to projects run by people you don’t agree with. That’s it. The rest of this discussion is just silly.

Sooo stallman started pushing freedom because he couldn’t get source for a printer driver. The whole idea behind fsf is to be truly free and neutral. Once you limit who can and cannot used your code, you are no longer free and open source by definition.

Sure, as a person, there are people I’d don’t like and think are up to no good but the second I limit them from using my software, it’s no longer free and open source.

So yes, the idea behind fsf was neutral.