On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 15:44:05 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:54:53 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
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.

But nobody cares to prove it to you. I made an assertion that patches were upstreamed, all the raw data is out there to show that. If you're unwilling to go look for it, doesn't bother me.

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.

Except that Android obviously has nothing so narrow as Hyper-V to which it's isolated to.

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).

What would be "proofs" of being made much more viable by commercial involvement? As for linux and gcc not being the only mature projects, every other one you can think of very likely also benefited greatly from commercial investment.

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!

Yep, they'd rather be _much_ more successful, like Android or llvm. :D

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.

If he's the author, how is he stealing your code? Google runs a patched linux kernel on a million servers and mostly doesn't release their patches, did they steal code from all linux kernel contributors?

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".

You always have access to your code, just not necessarily to code others wrote on top of your code.

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

Yes, you mentioned that before.

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.

I see, you want "proofs," but "don't know how you can make such proofs." Awfully convenient to demand proof and not define what you'll accept as proof. As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to prove it to yourself.

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.

This is commonly the case, doesn't matter if it's OSS or not.

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.

I already explained why: because that means they put more money into permissively-licensed projects like AOSP, clang/llvm, etc.

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.

Stallman accidentally got some things right, but his turning FOSS into some sort of idealistic crusade for pure open source, ie free software, is hopelessly ignorant. That's why the GPL is dying off.

I wrote about some of this and suggested a new mixed model almost five years ago:


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.

I don't see how they're doing anything to you, nor do I say anything about a vendor's PITA.

Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.

Reply via email to