5 ms·

I'm really not trying to shit on the GPL and free software, or pooh-pooh any philosophy. You just can't touch anything that's GPL if you build closed-source co

by douche 10y ago

I'm really not trying to shit on the GPL and free software, or pooh-pooh any philosophy. You just can't touch anything that's GPL if you build closed-source commercial software. That's kind of my job, and I have to be pragmatic and practical about it. I'm glad Microsoft is cognizant of the fact that they have legions of partners, vendors, and independent developers that have built their businesses on top of Microsoft libraries and technologies and has chosen appropriate licensing to reflect that.

mikegerwitz 10y ago
Microsoft has chosen a proper license for their audience, yes.
zeveb 10y ago
> You just can't touch anything that's GPL if you build closed-source commercial software. That's kind of my job, and I have to be pragmatic and practical about it. What's the moral difference between writing closed-source commercial software and being a slave trader?
moron4hire 10y ago
>> You just can't touch anything that's GPL if you build closed-source commercial software. That is not true at all and this reflects basically a willful ignorance of what the GPL actually says. >> That's kind of my job, and I have to be pragmatic and practical about it. Then you are bad at your job, because you do not know what the GPL means in practice. How can it be that most of the most valuable technology companies in the world--Google, Facebook, Amazon, just to name a few--are built from the core-up on open source software?