> My bad trying to be sarcastic on the internet. As I demonstrate, it is possible to be sarcastic without being wrong.
> 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 You are drawing a false equivalence between proprietary software and restrictive "free software" licenses. Proprietary software is a non-issue to people who don't choose to use it. Nim is copyfree, and requires no proprietary software in order to operate. People choosing Nim for their proprietary projects is a long-term benefit for the Nim community. You bringing up proprietary software has no connection to this "Nim Advocacy & Promotion Strategies" topic. Restrictive licenses, on the other hand, are [a clear and present danger](https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/4703) to that point of Nim advocacy. Such licenses enter the Nim ecosystem without most people giving them much notice. They do not constitute a legitimate contract (the way one can have legitimate point-of-sale or business contracts with Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, etc). The notion that some legalese attached to an `import` of an `import` of an `import` can bully you around is extremely dangerous. If a language like D would take this issue more seriously while Nim neglects it, then D would take the freedom crown away from Nim. > 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. Obviously the phrase is not literally true - source code is not a scarce physical object one holds in one's hands - thus the word "essentially" in the sarcastically-linked "[commie licenses](https://kazuo.io/2018/05/19/why-the-gnu-gpl-is-a-communist-ideal/)" article. > I frankly don't care that much about Nims popularity, as long as it's big > enough to survive and improve. Then you should politely ignore the "Nim Advocacy & Promotion Strategies" thread, which obviously does aim at improving Nim's popularity. More popularity means more ability to compete with other programming languages, more modules, more tooling, more books, more blogs, more bug reports / fixes, more tutorial videos, more employment opportunities, more attractive college girls who need my help with their Nim homework, etc. And also of course more sponsorship opportunities, donations, entrepreneurial spin-off projects, etc. I want @Araq and @dom96 to each get a private island and a jet for their efforts. 😁 > 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. > > Being relatively small actually helps with swift sweeping moves like the new > runtime [...] The best way to achieve that is modularity, not obscurity. It would be great if Nim had modular compiler frontends (["syntax skins"](https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/2811)), backends, runtimes / VMs, even stdlibs - while sharing as much of the common infrastructure, libraries, and tooling as possible. > [...] and keeps the politics-level low. [...] That's exactly the point I am making with "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. You are making another false equivalence. People like Richard Stallman and Coraline Ada Ehmke are the agitators who should have been told to "shut up and code". GitHub injecting controversial left-wing propaganda banners above everyone's code is another example of political agitation. You can't ignore the people who've started this war, and only blame those acting in self-defense! My position (or that of OpenBSD, the Copyfree Initiative, etc) is political neutrality. You won't see me pushing licenses or CoCs attacking people I disagree with. I want free software to be free, with no government force against anyone.
