4 ms·

> First off, we are huge fans of open source projects. This one sentence makes the whole post come off as disingenuous to me. Who isn’t a fan of free work?

remram 5y ago
The rest of the article explains why they won't release this product opensource even though they love it. It is not disingenuous. They released Mapperly under Apache-2.0, but I don't know if you read that far. If I tell you that "I love NodeJS but this specific project needs to run on embedded so I used C", it doesn't diminish my love of NodeJS or make it disingenuous. Love doesn't mean you'll always pick the thing no matter what, just a strong preference over the other possible options.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  > The rest of the article explains why they won't release opensource even though they love it. It is not disingenuous. No it doesn't. This is like someone saying, I love poor people and helping them but I love capitalism more because then I can charge those poor people in order for them to get help. Might as well just say what they really love which is money.
  - remram 5y ago
    Who is poor? How does needing money make you love capitalism? How do you personally pay rent if you feel that not giving every single thing for free is wrong?
  - CyberRabbi 5y ago
    > Might as well just say what they really love which is money. Thanks for understanding my point. They are just saying they “love open source” to ingratiate themselves to the reader but it’s a meaningless statement because who wouldn’t love free work? The entire article that follows comes off like a long-winded rationalization. They would be better off saying “we don’t open source our product because we don’t want to” I would respect that more and it would save me time.
    - remram 5y ago
      To you, the bar to be able to claim "we love open-source" is to have every single thing you make be open-source? Just like loving the color pink means every single thing you own should be pink? Does loving chocolate mean every single meal you prepare should have chocolate? I mean, it's valid, if you're consistent. I don't think it's the way anyone else uses the word, but that is one way to define it.
      - CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > To you, the bar to be able to claim "we love open-source” is to have every single thing you make be open-source? No, my point is that it’s a meaningless statement in this post and that it diminishes the apparent significance of the rest of the post.
        remram 5y ago
        That's not a point, that's a claim. They say they do, and they did release one piece of software open source. For the one they didn't release, they provided a rationale as to why not. Why do you claim that it's a "meaningless statement"?
        CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > Why do you claim that it's a "meaningless statement"? Because whether or not they “love open source” has no bearing on rationally deciding whether or not they should release one of their products as open source. The only function of that statement as far as I can tell is to ingratiate themselves to the reader, i.e. “we’re on your team!” That type of desperate signaling communicates a lack of confidence in their rationalization, which in turn makes it seem disingenuous.
        remram 5y ago
        Why do you say it "has no bearing"? From where I stand, they did contribute to opensource and they are opensourcing their other software, Mapperly. That looks like "bearing" to me.

remram 5y ago

The rest of the article explains why they won't release this product opensource even though they love it. It is not disingenuous. They released Mapperly under Apache-2.0, but I don't know if you read that far. If I tell you that "I love NodeJS but this specific project needs to run on embedded so I used C", it doesn't diminish my love of NodeJS or make it disingenuous. Love doesn't mean you'll always pick the thing no matter what, just a strong preference over the other possible options.

encryptluks2 5y ago
> The rest of the article explains why they won't release opensource even though they love it. It is not disingenuous. No it doesn't. This is like someone saying, I love poor people and helping them but I love capitalism more because then I can charge those poor people in order for them to get help. Might as well just say what they really love which is money.
- remram 5y ago
  Who is poor? How does needing money make you love capitalism? How do you personally pay rent if you feel that not giving every single thing for free is wrong?
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > Might as well just say what they really love which is money. Thanks for understanding my point. They are just saying they “love open source” to ingratiate themselves to the reader but it’s a meaningless statement because who wouldn’t love free work? The entire article that follows comes off like a long-winded rationalization. They would be better off saying “we don’t open source our product because we don’t want to” I would respect that more and it would save me time.
  - remram 5y ago
    To you, the bar to be able to claim "we love open-source" is to have every single thing you make be open-source? Just like loving the color pink means every single thing you own should be pink? Does loving chocolate mean every single meal you prepare should have chocolate? I mean, it's valid, if you're consistent. I don't think it's the way anyone else uses the word, but that is one way to define it.
    - CyberRabbi 5y ago
      > To you, the bar to be able to claim "we love open-source” is to have every single thing you make be open-source? No, my point is that it’s a meaningless statement in this post and that it diminishes the apparent significance of the rest of the post.
      - remram 5y ago
        That's not a point, that's a claim. They say they do, and they did release one piece of software open source. For the one they didn't release, they provided a rationale as to why not. Why do you claim that it's a "meaningless statement"?
        CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > Why do you claim that it's a "meaningless statement"? Because whether or not they “love open source” has no bearing on rationally deciding whether or not they should release one of their products as open source. The only function of that statement as far as I can tell is to ingratiate themselves to the reader, i.e. “we’re on your team!” That type of desperate signaling communicates a lack of confidence in their rationalization, which in turn makes it seem disingenuous.
        remram 5y ago
        Why do you say it "has no bearing"? From where I stand, they did contribute to opensource and they are opensourcing their other software, Mapperly. That looks like "bearing" to me.