4 ms·
It's the same old thing since 1998. It's just a push back against free software as always. It's the same kind of attacks as always, back when Ballmer called th
by jordigh 8y ago
It's the same old thing since 1998.
It's just a push back against free software as always. It's the same kind of attacks as always, back when Ballmer called the GPL "cancer", except that now that "open" and "community" are part of the lexicon, so they have to be sneakier about how they fight back. They use the same words but introduce the same tired old kind of restrictions. Whether it's about not being able to use the software in a server or not being allowed to redistribute the software in a CD, it's just the same kind of restriction for a different medium.
It's not free, it's not open. It's an attack on freedom and openness as usual.
- nerdponx 8y agoOther than the pure ideal of software freedom, what practically is bad about this kind of dual licensing? And how is this in any way tantamount to calling the GPL "cancer" (which, in all fairness, does spread somewhat like cancer throughout a codebase, regardless of whether you think that's a good or bad thing).
- yarrel 8y agoIn all fairness that isn't true. "Viral" and "cancer" are catchy memes but the GPL doesn't just inexplicably leap to software that is sat next to it minding its own business. The GPL is inheritance, not contagion. But it's difficult to talk smack about that without sounding even creepier.
- jaffee 8y agoYou can rant about an "attack on freedom" all you want, but how do you propose that Confluent protect its business so that they can continue paying their engineers to keep working on tools for which they publish all the source code? The alternatives seem to be 1. they keep all their stuff proprietary or 2. they leave it truly open and AWS takes the majority of their market and they slowly suffocate. Aren't both of those strictly worse than the path they've taken?