On 2 February 2018 at 09:56, Joakim via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> 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. :-)
