> Please. You haven't contributed a single library to Nim's ecosystem, Yes, I'm a very easy target for ad hominem attacks. My interest in Nim hasn't moved beyond theoretical in 7 years. Guilty as charged. But does that invalidate all of my points?
Maybe tomorrow you'll change your license to "No Libmans Allowed". 😛 > I made 18 (including wrappers), all under Apache2. Good, kudos, thank you. But if it was under "Apache2 || MIT" it would have been better for some minority of people. > But for some reason, you keep talking as if this was a threat to the purity > of Nim's ecosystem. Again, Apache isn't a top concern. This discussion thread is primarily about the aforementioned "no capitalists" / "no Trump supporters" licenses. (And if they were opposite in their political orientation I would still be concerned.) It's a "threat" to Nim having a competitive advantage in the [attributes of freedom](https://voat.co/v/programming/2853775) I've been talking about. > Yes, two people chose to use a weird license, which is of dubious legal > standing and **probably** not enforceable. Big deal That means some people cannot use those libraries, because that "probably" is a liability. Do you take every pill you find on the ground because it's "probably" not harmful? This emergence of ever-more-restrictive licenses (which I've predicted) is still worth discussing. That's what this thread is for.
