4 ms·
> ... but it doesn't follow from that that we should prefer third-party libraries to our own code. Agreed. The big tragedy of Open Source is that after its ini
by crpatino 10y ago
> ... but it doesn't follow from that that we should prefer third-party libraries to our own code.
Agreed. The big tragedy of Open Source is that after its initial wave of success it good flooded with freeloaders. If you allow me to repeat myself: The one flaw of the GPL is that it did not offer provisions to prohibit distribution in binary form. "You want free? Better you know how to unpack the tarball and build the project from scratch... all by yourself (No build scripts beyond Makefile permitted, thank you very much)".
Of course, such overzealous GPL would need to also make provisions to accept dual licensing with nice, commercial, royalty seeking licences. That way, everybody gets what they value the most: You want freedom, you pay with sweat; you just want access, you pay in cash.
- imagist 10y agoThat would pretty much defeat the entire goal of free software. Setting up a technical barrier to usage is counter to free software goals.
- crpatino 10y agoAnd what are those goals? Provide free labor to corporate interests? Give away free products to cheap people that cannot care to recognize for one second the personal effort invested by the producers? Creators are going to create, they cannot help it. I do not say that you cannot provide altruistic value to others, but my opinion is that you should care about your own people first. And the big mistake of programmers as a profession is that we do not see other fellow programmers as our own people.