[margarina72]

> Free and open source software movements have no shortage of problematic unempathetic leaders

True of democracy, True in the business-world, True in religion, True in philosophy... People are not code, so open source can define a licence but when people are interacting with each other, there will always be problematic people.

[schneems]

Laurence Lessig called it back in Code 2.0: four elements that regulate behavior online: Laws, norms, markets, and technology

- Code/architecture – the physical or technical constraints on activities (e.g. locks on doors or firewalls on the Internet)

- Market – economic forces

- Law – explicit mandates that can be enforced by the government

- Norms – social conventions that one often feels compelled to follow

My take is that licenses are only one of many factors that are important. If something is illegal but the norm is to do it anyway (speeding) or if you’re rich enough to pay any speeding fine (markets) and have monster truck shocks to ignore speed bumps (architecture) then nothing will slow you down.

[kazinator]

It would help the author's point if he could name, say, three such leaders of high influence.

We can easily observe that closed source, proprietary software has no shortage of problematic, unempathetic managers and executives right through the CEO level.

This is tech; we have autists and Asperger's cases left and right.

[Brian_K_White]

They did name at leat 2, Stallman & Raymond.

But if you actually consult any random writing or speaking of either of them, go to any random spot and read or watch for 30 seconds, you will find nothing but arguments based on empathy.

So they did name examples, but the examples do not support the authors assertion.

[Brian_K_White]

Practically every word of every speech and article by either of the two highlighted examples Stallman or Raymond are based on empathy.

Author appears to have their own problematic relationship with empathy.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

Wait the one about epstein?