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.

Reply via email to