4 ms·

Yes, I'm willing to be frank and state explicitly that I'm calling this person a liar.

sanderjd 8y ago
What's your history with them that leads you to this conclusion? If you don't have any, and you're simply making assumptions based on their choice of licensing terms, what would your argument look like if you instead imagined them as people acting in good faith, trying to provide software to people on terms that allow them to both continue improving the software while also providing for their families? I guess the reason I have trouble assuming bad faith with things like this is because it would be much easier for these people to just get high paying jobs at big software companies than to try to eke out a living making a useful source-provided (it would be so much easier to just use "open source" here, but that is verboten) product while arguing with people like you.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  I think I've explained myself quite well in the thread. My personal, subjective conclusion is of dishonesty. I cannot give you an objective measure, the evidence is in this thread and you can draw your own conclusions. Being a generally good person who is trying to put food on the table for their family is not mutually exclusive with lying and resorting to questionably ethical means of doing so.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    I've (unfortunately) read the whole thread. You've jumped to an uncharitable conclusion. A bunch of people have pointed this out. You can disagree while assuming good faith. It's too bad you aren't doing that here. I agree with you that it isn't a very good choice for licensing terms.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      >You can disagree while assuming good faith Yes, but bad faith exists, and the assumption of good faith is not always appropriate. I don't think that Dgraph is operating in good faith, and the evidence is enough that I am unable to suspend my disbelief. If I were Dgraph and my actions were so severely wrong that people were assuming bad faith, I would want to quickly correct that. But in fact, most of the concerns have gone un-answered.

What's your history with them that leads you to this conclusion? If you don't have any, and you're simply making assumptions based on their choice of licensing terms, what would your argument look like if you instead imagined them as people acting in good faith, trying to provide software to people on terms that allow them to both continue improving the software while also providing for their families? I guess the reason I have trouble assuming bad faith with things like this is because it would be much easier for these people to just get high paying jobs at big software companies than to try to eke out a living making a useful source-provided (it would be so much easier to just use "open source" here, but that is verboten) product while arguing with people like you.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I think I've explained myself quite well in the thread. My personal, subjective conclusion is of dishonesty. I cannot give you an objective measure, the evidence is in this thread and you can draw your own conclusions. Being a generally good person who is trying to put food on the table for their family is not mutually exclusive with lying and resorting to questionably ethical means of doing so.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  I've (unfortunately) read the whole thread. You've jumped to an uncharitable conclusion. A bunch of people have pointed this out. You can disagree while assuming good faith. It's too bad you aren't doing that here. I agree with you that it isn't a very good choice for licensing terms.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    >You can disagree while assuming good faith Yes, but bad faith exists, and the assumption of good faith is not always appropriate. I don't think that Dgraph is operating in good faith, and the evidence is enough that I am unable to suspend my disbelief. If I were Dgraph and my actions were so severely wrong that people were assuming bad faith, I would want to quickly correct that. But in fact, most of the concerns have gone un-answered.