2 ms·

See my response to /u/temac below. I think the entire problem with your argument is that you're trying to decide what someone should do with their work. If I d

See my response to /u/temac below. I think the entire problem with your argument is that you're trying to decide what someone should do with their work. If I decide to spend thousands of hours writing software (or building a boat for that matter) and give it away for someone to make a profit with, that should be entirely my decision. The entire discussion is so patronizing I'm having trouble believing that I'm reading this. People aren't stupid: don't assume you know what's good for them better than they do. We all have our various motivations whether or not they make sense to someone else on the outside. > "wouldn't it be great if we had some sort of automatic distribution of credit that would somehow flow directly back to the source" You mean like GPL2?

hnedeotes 6y ago
The only one being patronising is you? How would this, hypothetical vapourware distribution system, steal your, or anyone, choice of doing whatever you want with your code? I think that if you read this and that's your conclusion it would seem that the only one assuming something would be you? You can just scroll up and read my post again. It seems you're the one saying that others shouldn't have the choice of doing that? What would it matter to you if someone decided to do that for their own packages. How would that be different from using GPL on their own volition?