On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000 Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 15:48:59 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 15:02:57 +0000 > > Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce > > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > >> I'll tell you how. First off, all the external OSS projects > >> that AOSP builds on, whether the linux kernel or gpsd or gcc, > >> get much more usage and patches because they're being > >> commercially used. > > can i see some statistics? i hear that argument ("it got more > > patches") > > almost every time, but nobody can give any proofs. i can't see > > how x86 > > code generator got better due to android, for example. > > Why would we collect stats: what difference does it make if an > OSS project is 10% commercially developed or 20%? 'cause i want to know what "much more" means. 1? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? sure, 1 is "much more" than zero, as 1 is not "nothing". but how much? > There are > patches being sent upstream that would not be sent otherwise, > that's all that matters. nope. when i see "much more", i want to know how much is that "much". > As for the x86 code generator, Android > has been available on x86 for years now: it's possible there were > some patches sent back for that. and it's possible that i sent even more patches. so what? why nobody prise me for that? ah, i'm not a That Big Company that throws off their leavings. > You may not care about any of these patches for your own use, > because you don't use ARM or whatever, but you certainly seem to > care about FOSS doing well. i still can't understand what "doing well" means. what i see is that with corporations comes a rise of "permissive licenses", and i can't see that as good thing. > Well, the only reason FOSS "suits" > your needs and has any usage today is precisely because > commercial vendors contributed greatly to its development i don't think so. OpenBSD suits too. it just happens that i didn't have an access to *BSD at the time, so i took Linux. yet i'm seriously thinking about dropping Linux, as with all those "commercial support" is suits me lesser and lesser. > You may resent the fact that it means some non-OSS software still > exists out there and is doing well, but FOSS would be dead > without it. If that were the case, there would be almost no "F," > just try doing anything with Windows Mobile or Blackberry OS. > Your "F" may be less than a hypothetical pure FOSS world, but > that world will never exist. this world is still not exist. and dropping "F" will not help it. > What you should worry about more is that not only has the GPLv3 > not taken off, but the GPLv2 is also in retreat, with more and > more projects choosing permissive licenses these days. The viral > licensing approach of the GPLv2/v3 is increasingly dying off. that's why i'm against OSS bs. the success of Linux is tied with it's "viral" license. just look at FreeBSD: it started earlier, it has alot more to offer when Linux was just a child, yet it's "permissive" license leads to companies took FreeBSD and doing closed forks (juniper, for example).
Description: PGP signature