3 ms·
The header said “Venture Capital Shill”, so I thought I was using a term he self identified with. Maybe I was wrong about that and it is just the title of the a
by mark_l_watson 7y ago
The header said “Venture Capital Shill”, so I thought I was using a term he self identified with. Maybe I was wrong about that and it is just the title of the article.
- detaro 7y agoYou literally quoted part of the section that describes that the author considers that label an unfair attack made to allow people to ignore his arguments. And then used said label to attack him and ignore his arguments. The article is worth reading more carefully, even if you don't agree with him.
- mark_l_watson 7y agoI will, thanks for your comments.
- yabadabadoes 7y agoI read the article as carefully as I could given its style and I think the author is injecting the negative sentiment by self abasement to give himself license to anger, etc. The GPL was written by an institutional employee that was upset by VC backed plans to co-opt internal software and turn it into a profit vehicle. In that context the compatibility of everyone's interests but VC interests make perfect sense. The claim that copy left is failing and byzantine are haberdash. That many people don't understand GPL and that it is succeeding in its direction and not the one they assumed is an argument that could be made and should at a minimum be significant to VCs.