2 ms·

I've had my share of beefs with Sir_Cmpwn but this post is nonsense. You can't "largely" practice an open source model. Either you do or you don't. Dgraph was

I've had my share of beefs with Sir_Cmpwn but this post is nonsense. You can't "largely" practice an open source model. Either you do or you don't. Dgraph was interesting to me until they said they wanted to take a vig for me sharing knowledge and practical advice about the software (because that's what consulting, an activity expressly precluded in the dishonestly-named Commons Clause, is). That? That can go straight to hell. Being a taker of open source (because you certainly "interact with open source") is your right but has absolutely nothing to do with those of us actually expecting those draping themselves in the banner of open source to practice open source principles and to run an open source project as an open source project. That exists between your ears and your ears alone.

staticassertion 8y ago
> I've had my share of beefs with Sir_Cmpwn but this post is nonsense. You can't "largely" practice an open source model. Either you do or you don't. Well, given that there are like 10 different criteria to meet it very obviously is not black and white. You can view dgraph's source. You can modify and contribute to it. You can fork it, change it, etc. You just can't make it your own product that you sell. It is open source in many, many ways, and probably the general, colloquial way. Whining endlessly because they don't want other people to sell it, and to maintain some semblance of ownership, is what's ridiculous.
- eropple 8y ago
  You can't accept money to talk to somebody about the open-source project. The Commons Clause literally says this! Does the level of bullshit that implies not resonate? Even if there weren't a nigh-universally accepted definition of open source software that precludes it--and it does--in what universe does that suggest openness?
  - staticassertion 8y ago
    The code is open. You can modify the code. You can fork the code. You can do everything you'd normally do with the code. You can not sell the code, or services that are directly based on the code. Sounds pretty open and reasonable. But we'll just have to disagree I think.

staticassertion 8y ago

> I've had my share of beefs with Sir_Cmpwn but this post is nonsense. You can't "largely" practice an open source model. Either you do or you don't. Well, given that there are like 10 different criteria to meet it very obviously is not black and white. You can view dgraph's source. You can modify and contribute to it. You can fork it, change it, etc. You just can't make it your own product that you sell. It is open source in many, many ways, and probably the general, colloquial way. Whining endlessly because they don't want other people to sell it, and to maintain some semblance of ownership, is what's ridiculous.

eropple 8y ago
You can't accept money to talk to somebody about the open-source project. The Commons Clause literally says this! Does the level of bullshit that implies not resonate? Even if there weren't a nigh-universally accepted definition of open source software that precludes it--and it does--in what universe does that suggest openness?
- staticassertion 8y ago
  The code is open. You can modify the code. You can fork the code. You can do everything you'd normally do with the code. You can not sell the code, or services that are directly based on the code. Sounds pretty open and reasonable. But we'll just have to disagree I think.