On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 13:48:12 UTC, psychotic Rabbit
On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 10:21:35 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I can't be bothered to strain through your tortured analogies
that make no sense and explain to you all the ways you're
wrong. I'm respecting you enough to point out that none of
your points make any sense, most would just ignore crazy
analogies like this and move on, content to let you stew in
Well, that sure is an interesting way of responding to
By giving up, you've made your argument ever weaker that it was
But all power to you..and you're hybrid 'ransom the open source
community' model ...just don't work on my projects, unless your
contribution is free.
When you start by calling the dominant mixed licensing model, or
at least my twist on it, "offensive," frankly a bizzare claim,
you don't inspire confidence that you're actually looking for a
discussion. However, I liked a comment you made in another
thread about why people should use D, which showed some insight,
so I will respond a bit.
In most any open source community today, there are people who
volunteer contributions and those who get paid to write
open-source or sometimes even closed-source patches, particularly
for mixed projects like Android or llvm. In other words, it's
already a mix of people volunteering work for free and those
getting paid, and we don't see the breakdown you posit. The fact
is that some people are fine with volunteering and most aren't,
as the vast majority of lines of source code written is
closed-source, so mixing the two works just fine.
As for your lawn mower analogy, the difference is you don't own
this lawn mower, the open-source code. It is a shared resource,
that anybody can do what they want with, especially for the
non-GPL code that I mentioned in my article. So building
proprietary modules on an OSS codebase is more like building your
own bricks-and-mortar store on your private land alongside a
public road, something people have been doing for millenia. OSS
code works much better for this than any road, because you can
copy it a million times at basically no cost, whereas only a
couple dozen stores can be built alongside a road.
And what we find is that when you allow such mixing with
permissively-licensed projects (that the GPL makes much more
difficult), as we see with those using mixed models in the
popular permissively-licensed projects I mentioned above, you can
fund a _lot_ more development even on the OSS core, which is why
Android is now the dominant operating system on the planet.
This experiment has been run over the last decade: mixed models
have won. That is why I think D should follow suit, leading such
mixed use for programming languages too.