Sigh, I did ask you some questions, which you've answered with a
couple more questions, so I'll give you one last response.
On Sunday, 21 December 2014 at 18:52:00 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:24:12 +0000
Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
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.
do you see how discussion without proofs has no sense at all?
No, I see that you asking me to quantify something and then
dodging the question of why it should be quantified, ie when I
asked you what your magical threshold of relevance is, makes no
sense at all. :) In any case, whatever you think that would
prove, I have not offered to prove it to you. The raw data is
out there: if you want certain statistics extracted from that
data that only matter to you, it's up to you to collect them.
> 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
individial projects. android. llvm. you just divided by zero.
Whatever that means. Both have become much more successful in
recent years by using mostly permissive licenses.
> 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?
i obviously meant "he accepted my patches, and then..."
If you sent him patches, he's not stealing your code. No wonder
you left that part out, but your whole story made no sense
without it.
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?
does google selling that servers with patched kernel? i was
talking
about selling the software product (as a standalone product or
with
accompanying hardware). using the product in-house to built
some system
whose output then sold is ok.
I see, so it's okay if google takes outside patches for their
kernel, creates a search engine on top of it, and then sells
access to the advertising on that search engine without releasing
any kernel source, but not okay if they sell those same servers
with that patched kernel and search engine bundled without
including any kernel source. This is the classic idiocy of GPL
zealots, where they imagine they are purists for "freedom" then
twist themselves in knots when it's pointed out the GPL actually
doesn't accomplish that in any meaningful way, since most GPL
code actually runs on the server. Of course, some then go use
the AGPL, but that's a small minority.
> 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 that is wrong. either not use my code at all, or give me
all the
code that is using my code, with rights to redistribute.
Funny how you don't make the same demands of google or some other
cloud vendor who runs your code. I guess distribution must be
magical somehow, ie it's okay if they run your code on the
server, just not on the desktop.
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.
that wasn't me who created such situation.
As I said before, all the data is out there, you're free to
prove it to yourself.
so you have no proofs. q.e.d.
Lol, _you_ created the impossible situation of demanding proof
you couldn't define, nobody is going to prove it to you.
> 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.
and that kills the whole your argument about "OSS software
can't be
grown to use in 'real work' without corporate support".
I was only agreeing that anything successful usually starts as
guerilla and that when a large company starts investing a lot in
it, they often make mistakes. No idea how you draw the
conclusion from that that OSS can't be made more viable through
corporate support, especially given that that has been shown
invariably to be the case.
> 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.
the projects for which i see no use. i just can't care less.
Well, a billion people do care, so the money and support they're
pouring into those projects means they're obsoleting the projects
you do care about. :)
Stallman accidentally got some things right
no, that wasn't "accidentally". he is *always* right. and each
time RL
goes "by Stallman", people keep telling me that "this was an
accident
and pure luck(unluck)". won't buy it.
Haha, "Stallman is god," thank you for making it clear that
you're not thinking clearly on this topic.
That's why the GPL is dying off.
but it isn't. corporate players trying to establish their rules
and
subvert FOSS definition, this is true. but what they actually
doing is
just preparing another rise of FOSS and GPL. people need some
time to
grok that "permissive" licenses are used to took away people's
freedom,
and then everything will start all over again.
Keep dreaming. I've pointed out to you the economic reasons why
permissive licenses are winning, but you either don't understand
them or are willfully ignoring them.
I don't see how they're doing anything to you
this is the root of the whole problem.
Anyway, you seem ideologically committed to the GPL, no matter
how flawed it is, so I'll leave it here.
not to GPL itself, but to freedom. for now the best tool we
have to
protect our freedom in software industry is GPL. but i really
don't
care about tools much, i care for the purpose for which those
tools
were designed.
Except when that purpose is to run the software on the server,
then you don't care about "freedom." The "freedom" that you want
isn't really provided by the GPL, and is impossible if you demand
that all software must be completely free, instead of parts of
software being open source, like with Android.
But it's not about reality and any meaningful definition of
freedom for people like you, it's about creating some fantasy
inconsistent definition and then clinging to it, no matter how
irrational.