My bad trying to be sarcastic on the internet. > I don't know what you mean by "wrench code from the hands of open-source > software projects who dare to use proprietary software".
You may have noticed that I copied the language from your illustrative non-source and made some replacements: proprietary software owners -> open-source software projects copyright law -> patent/property laws GPL software -> proprietary software My intention was to show that the phrase "to wrench code from the hands of" is not really true and overly dramatic in BOTH cases. Nobody is forced to use GPL code and then suffer consequences, just like nobody is forced to pollute their open-source project e.g. with dependencies to proprietary libraries, which would make it useless to many of its users. > There are 100+ languages more popular than Nim, and many are catching up with > the features, but Nim can have unique selling points they can never compete > on. I frankly don't care that much about Nims popularity, as long as it's big enough to survive and improve. Being relatively small actually helps with swift sweeping moves like the new runtime, and keeps the politics-level low. Nim should be the best it can technologically and not rely on political/legal points. Nobody has a problem with technical quality, but what you think is a big win in the legal/political field could actually turn off other people. > And now the lack of Ehmkeian political correctness witch-hunt drama is an > additional bonus. To be honest, I find both license evangelism and CoC preaching pretty annoying. Keep the politics out of it where possible.
