5 ms·
MIT license allows it, so where's the problem. It's like people who support freedom of speech, and then cry anytime someone used it to say something they don't
by dpc_pw 6y ago
MIT license allows it, so where's the problem. It's like people who support freedom of speech, and then cry anytime someone used it to say something they don't like.
Some of the wording there sounds petty. "whose founder uses flawed technical arguments" rubs me the wrong way. Like "The science on this is settled and everyone who ever disagreed should be personally discredited" kind of thing.
Having said that, I don't know why would anyone sane tie their codebase to a closed source language owned by some random company. I don't understand why Zig Foundation even bothers with this - seems like it is just giving publicity to something that has little to none chance of gaining market traction anyway.
- kristoff_it 6y agoSee the top-level comment from a Japanese developer. Language barriers and arbitrage are real things.
- dnautics 6y agoIf we take the claims of zig at face value, then it seems quite a bit of their frustration is around the mistreatment of one of their valued contributors. That alone would seem like worth complaining about; and the rest of the stuff establishes a pattern of misbehaviour. If all of this is true, I'm glad this gets attention in hn - so that the community as a whole can have insight into what happens sometimes in our subcommunities and know what to look out for.
- wtetzner 6y ago> MIT license allows it, so where's the problem. It's like people who support freedom of speech, and then cry anytime someone used it to say something they don't like. You can support freedom of speech and still publicly disagree with what people say. Freedom of speech says that people should not be silenced, not that they can't be disagreed with.