On 2 February 2018 at 09:56, Joakim via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 02:04:07 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 31 January 2018 at 08:43:46 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> My time-limited model makes sure all source is made open eventually, once
>>> the developers have been paid for their work.
>>>
>>
>> This deceptive hybrid model (based I my understanding of it per the
>> description above) is really offensive to those of us who understand the
>> concept of open-source, and the benefits that flow from it.
>>
>> You (not you personally - I mean the person implementing such a hybrid
>> model) lure people in with free open source, then, when something is found
>> to be wrong with it, you make them wait for the fix.. until.. .. .. your
>> ransom has been paid.
>>
>> Utterly offensive (the model that is).
>>
>> Open source means just that ...  Open source - It's turtles all the way
>> down.
>>
>> Ransom-ware is something very different.
>
>
> Except it's none of those things, as you yourself grasp that it's a "hybrid
> model," ie not purely open source.  So it cannot be deceptive, offensive, or
> ransom-ware, since it's perfectly clear that it's its own thing.  And that
> mixed model is pretty much the way all software is built these days,
> including the linux kernel as mentioned earlier in this thread, so you are
> clearly using such mixed software too, just by the fact that you posted in
> this thread.
>
> So given that all your claims are easily logically proven to be nonsense,
> there's no point in going any further.

I'm reminded of airlines who have a "Priority" or "Privileged" queuing
system at the gate.  If you didn't want to wait in line to board, then
you should have paid up.

Not sure if any parallels ring with you here. :-)

Reply via email to