8 ms·

> To me, it seems like, if it offers no business opportunities, then people just won't offer innovations using permissive licenses for open core in the first pl

> To me, it seems like, if it offers no business opportunities, then people just won't offer innovations using permissive licenses for open core in the first place I consider this a far better scenario than the current bait-and-switch culture. The Free Software (and Open Source) community has put a lot of effort and volunteering work into constructing its world and gaining its reputation - based on putting the needs of the users first. Now a for-profit organization comes around, and wants to get all the credit for being "open source" without actually being open source? They're poseurs. I'd say good riddance to them. Innovation is not a goal by itself - the purpose of innovation is to benefit people in general.

ericb 4y ago
> Innovation is not a goal by itself - the purpose of innovation is to benefit people in general. Which is already happening under permissive licenses. > Innovation is not a goal by itself I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made?
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Which is already happening under permissive licenses. Sure, nobody claimed otherwise. But putting "innovation" as an ideal is a red herring, designed to misdirect attention from the fact that "innovation" in proprietary technologies in general does not benefit the general population, and in some cases even stifles their freedom. Innovation, in order to be a worthy goal for a society, must serve the society in its whole, not just a couple of businessmen. > You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made? I care about whether software continues to be made, but that's beyond the point, since the Free Software has succeeded in being developed even without support from for-profit companies (and sometimes even despite their sabotage - remember "Linux is a cancer"?). Implying that software will somehow "not be made" without for-profit corporations employing programmers for peanuts is an old and tired argument, proven false by the very existence and triumph of the GNU system over most commercial systems.
  - ericb 4y ago
    > Implying that software will somehow "not be made" without for-profit corporations employing programmers for peanuts is an old and tired argument, proven false by the very existence and triumph of the GNU system over most commercial systems. I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created, and you're building a straw man to pretend I'm saying that no open source software will be created. Your argument here seems disingenuous.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      I'm not building a straw man: > > Innovation is not a goal by itself > I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made? This question is implying that, if I do not consider an innovation a goal by itself - and therefore don't consider open-core "good", morally speaking - then I don't care whether software continues to be made. The phrase "continues to be made" is all-or-nothing - software can either continue to be made, or not continue to be made, i.e. disappear. So: > I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created It is certainly not what you said, as per above explanation. Perhaps it's what you intended to say, in which case please feel free to express your thoughts more precisely, so we can continue from there.

ericb 4y ago

> Innovation is not a goal by itself - the purpose of innovation is to benefit people in general. Which is already happening under permissive licenses. > Innovation is not a goal by itself I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made?

bheadmaster 4y ago
> Which is already happening under permissive licenses. Sure, nobody claimed otherwise. But putting "innovation" as an ideal is a red herring, designed to misdirect attention from the fact that "innovation" in proprietary technologies in general does not benefit the general population, and in some cases even stifles their freedom. Innovation, in order to be a worthy goal for a society, must serve the society in its whole, not just a couple of businessmen. > You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made? I care about whether software continues to be made, but that's beyond the point, since the Free Software has succeeded in being developed even without support from for-profit companies (and sometimes even despite their sabotage - remember "Linux is a cancer"?). Implying that software will somehow "not be made" without for-profit corporations employing programmers for peanuts is an old and tired argument, proven false by the very existence and triumph of the GNU system over most commercial systems.
- ericb 4y ago
  > Implying that software will somehow "not be made" without for-profit corporations employing programmers for peanuts is an old and tired argument, proven false by the very existence and triumph of the GNU system over most commercial systems. I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created, and you're building a straw man to pretend I'm saying that no open source software will be created. Your argument here seems disingenuous.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    I'm not building a straw man: > > Innovation is not a goal by itself > I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made? This question is implying that, if I do not consider an innovation a goal by itself - and therefore don't consider open-core "good", morally speaking - then I don't care whether software continues to be made. The phrase "continues to be made" is all-or-nothing - software can either continue to be made, or not continue to be made, i.e. disappear. So: > I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created It is certainly not what you said, as per above explanation. Perhaps it's what you intended to say, in which case please feel free to express your thoughts more precisely, so we can continue from there.