On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> 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
> > <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.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

> 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).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to