On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 18:49:06 UTC, ketmar via 
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 17:12:46 +0000
> > Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
> > <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>   >> 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".
> That still doesn't answer the question of why anyone would spend 
> time collecting stats when it's pointless to quantify anyway.  If 
> it's 20%, is it all of a sudden worth it for you?  10%?  30%?
i believe that when someone says "much more", he didn't take the
numbers from /dev/urandom, and he already has very impressive stats. why
else he would do comparisons? he must base his opinion on some numbers.
or... or i just can say that with my contributions Linux got many more
patches, so prise me -- and everyone will believe? i bet not, i will be
asked for at least numerical proofs. so i won't buy bs about "many more
patches with android" without numbers at least. and then i will ask to
show *what* parts was changed, just to make sure that this is not a
useless android-specific crap.

see, m$ recently commits alot of patches, yet it's still very hard to
say that "microsoft help develops Linux". what those patches do is
compatibility with their proprietary "hyperv". useless crap. yet
numbers still looks impressive.

> >> 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.
> I've explained in detail what "doing well" means: these hobbyist 
> OSS projects, whether the linux kernel or gcc or whatever you 
> prefer, would be unusable for any real work without significant 
> commercial involvement over the years.  Not sure what's difficult 
> to understand about that.
you didn't give any proofs. moreover, you simply lying, as gcc, for
example, was perfectly usable long before commercial vendors starts
sending patches.

and i can assure you that Linux and GCC are not the only [F]OSS
projects which are very usable for "real work" (i don't know what
"real work" and "unreal work" is, but hell with it).

> It's not just corporations using permissive licenses.  Many more 
> individuals choose a permissive license for their personal 
> projects these days, as opposed to emulating linux and choosing 
> the GPL by default like they did in the past.
ah, so you saying that they specifically don't want to emulate Linux
success? i knew that!

from my POV the only sane reason why author can choose "permissive"
license is to steal my code. so he can take my contribution, use it in
proprietary closed-source version and make money from it.

i see nothing bad from making money from the product... until that
product uses my code in the way that i can't get free access to
product sources AND i can't pass those sources around freely. oh, i
mean "the code i wrote without payment".

and i prefer GPLv3 over GPLv2 as GPLv3 closes tivoisation hole.

> >>  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 think OpenBSD did not also benefit from commercial help?
if you'll go this way you'll found that nobody using hand-made
computers for running FOSS software, so... i want numbers. again. and
proofs that without such help the project will be in unusable state
now. i don't know how you can make such proofs, but that's not me who
claims that without commercial proof FOSS is "not ready for real work",
so it's not me who must give proofs. i'm telling you that... let's take
emacs and GCC: emacs, GCC and GDB was perfectly usable before
corporations started to take FOSS movement seriously.

you know what... the whole UNIX story started as "guerilla OS". only
when UNIX becames successfull, AT/T begins to invest money in it. and,
btw, did that completely wrong, effectively killed UNIX.

> The viral GPL may have helped linux initially, when it was mostly 
> consulting/support companies like IBM and Red Hat using open 
> source, so the viral aspect of forcing them to release source 
> pushed linux ahead of BSD.  But now that companies are more used 
> to open source and actually releasing products based on open 
> source, like Android or Juniper's OS or llvm, they're releasing 
> source for permissive licenses also and products make a lot more 
> money than consulting/support, ie Samsung and Apple make a ton 
> more money off Android/iOS than Red Hat makes off OS support 
> contracts.
why do you think that i should care how much money corporations will
get? i know that most people don't give a shit about their freedom and
would sell it for a dime.

> So the writing is on the wall: by hitching themselves to a better 
> commercial model, permissive licenses and mixed models are slowly 
> killing off the GPL.
i already heard that. all that i can say is "those who don't believe
Stallman are doomed to live in the world Stallman describes". the bad
thing that they help build such world *for* *me* too. so i can't live
'em alone in their brave new world.

> I wrote about some of this and suggested a 
> new mixed model almost five years ago:
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing
> What I predicted has basically come true with Android's enormous 
> success using their mixed model, though I think my time-limited 
> mixed model is ultimately the endgame.
this is all about the ways vendor can fuck me. but i don't want to be
fucked at all. and i don't care how much PITA for vendor it is, just
like vendor don't care about my needs.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to