3 ms·

So what you're saying is, LO vs AOO is real-world testing that shows a conclusive defeat of "permissive" at the hands of "copyleft", in terms of appeal to the c

So what you're saying is, LO vs AOO is real-world testing that shows a conclusive defeat of "permissive" at the hands of "copyleft", in terms of appeal to the class of users who know the difference.

jimjag 10y ago
"users"?? Hardly. Instead, it shows that should copyleft people desire, they can severely damage permissive projects by simply not doing what their own license requires. They kind of prove the point that you have to force people to give back, because given their own tendencies, they won't. LO could have easily been a bilateral partner, instead of a simple consumer. Even so, LO benefited greatly by having AOO to consume, as I have mentioned elsewhere. You simply can't ignore that nor hand-wave away it's significance.
- int_19h 10y ago
  I can see how LO benefited from the original OO greatly, but AOO? Sure, LO has ported a bunch of stuff from there, but they wrote a great deal more from scratch (unsurprising, since that's where all the dev resources were). And, aside from abstract good feelings, what benefit would having two forks of the same product, with no clear difference in philosophy (like you have with the BSDs, for example), serve? Sure, the licenses are different. But if LO guys cared about more permissive licenses, they would have just dual-licensed their own codebase.
mindcrime 10y ago
Gerard, take your anti-AOO trolling somewhere else. I've had enough of it.
- davidgerard 10y ago
  I think the problem there is that you are, literally, one of the AOO developers who spent his time commenting on blogs and forum sites, flaming people who were pointing out the Emperor's new security policy - while not lifting a finger to actually stop distributing security holes to your own users. It is possible you don't have the moral high ground here. Dab hand at flaming people, though, well done.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Maybe so. At any rate, have a nice day, and a great weekend!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

So what you're saying is, LO vs AOO is real-world testing that shows a conclusive defeat of "permissive" at the hands of "copyleft", in terms of appeal to the class of users who know the difference.

jimjag 10y ago

"users"?? Hardly. Instead, it shows that should copyleft people desire, they can severely damage permissive projects by simply not doing what their own license requires. They kind of prove the point that you have to force people to give back, because given their own tendencies, they won't. LO could have easily been a bilateral partner, instead of a simple consumer. Even so, LO benefited greatly by having AOO to consume, as I have mentioned elsewhere. You simply can't ignore that nor hand-wave away it's significance.

int_19h 10y ago
I can see how LO benefited from the original OO greatly, but AOO? Sure, LO has ported a bunch of stuff from there, but they wrote a great deal more from scratch (unsurprising, since that's where all the dev resources were). And, aside from abstract good feelings, what benefit would having two forks of the same product, with no clear difference in philosophy (like you have with the BSDs, for example), serve? Sure, the licenses are different. But if LO guys cared about more permissive licenses, they would have just dual-licensed their own codebase.

mindcrime 10y ago

Gerard, take your anti-AOO trolling somewhere else. I've had enough of it.

davidgerard 10y ago
I think the problem there is that you are, literally, one of the AOO developers who spent his time commenting on blogs and forum sites, flaming people who were pointing out the Emperor's new security policy - while not lifting a finger to actually stop distributing security holes to your own users. It is possible you don't have the moral high ground here. Dab hand at flaming people, though, well done.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Maybe so. At any rate, have a nice day, and a great weekend!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]