4 ms·

Maybe you should direct your ire at Apple, which has 40 times the revenue of Bloomberg and has been actually shipping curl in their operating systems for 20 yea

by em500 4y ago

Maybe you should direct your ire at Apple, which has 40 times the revenue of Bloomberg and has been actually shipping curl in their operating systems for 20 years without contributing a dime: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/09/25/curls-first-twenty-years-on-the-mac/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2021/09/25/curls-first-twenty-ye...

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
> They also made the exact code they used available. It is unclear whether this is an ongoing contribution or was a one-time reveal after the first time Apple built curl for MacOS, but it seems unfair to say they never contributed anything except source code and exposure for a freely-licensed tool that says on the tin that you can do exactly all of the above.
scarface74 4y ago
Why do people take time creating open source code that says anyone can use it freely and then complain when anyone uses it freely?
- krapp 4y ago
  Because people get jealous when they see others making money with their free code but they aren't, and they never really thought the ramification of the FOSS philosophy through.
  - varjag 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure the author knew ramifications of FOSS before many his critics here were even conceived. He had decades to abandon the project, this predatory behaviour is not new.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Well seeing that I was “conceived” around September of 1973 and I first “open sourced” code by submitting it via ftp to the Mac archive site in 1993, I am almost sure that is not the case.
      - varjag 4y ago
        It's good that I qualified my statement as "many" rather than "all" then. Something an extremely attentive reader such as you surely appreciated.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Clearly they don't, the only time I've heard anything about this was when Apple forwarded support requests for the version of open source software they packaged upstream (despite the usual "no guarantees" license), which is kind of scummy for a commercial company. Not illegal or a reason for billing them any money, just pretty scummy. The GP complains that Bloomberg doesn't give away enough free money because it's a very profitable company. Apple, an even more profitable company, actually shipping the project this is about to their customers, pays even less. L If there was some kind of expectation that big companies using open source would provide any support, I'd say that yes, Apple should definitely be looked at more sternly than Bloomberg. I don't think anyone is saying that here, though.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    The curl author may not “expect” anything. But they seem to complain when they didn’t get anything. > Neither me personally nor the project have ever gotten anything or any compensation from Apple.
    - varjag 4y ago
      They complain they get to effectively serve as Apple technical support, due to Apple's choice of shipping old versions of curl with their products. Which is fair.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Again they chose to release their product as open source. These are the consequences.
        varjag 4y ago
        Releasing something open source does not mean the author has any responsibility for any amount of support, that's the "AS-IS" part of many FOSS licenses. It is ridiculous to present a certain amicability to supporting users as some form of indenture.

by em500 4y ago

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago

> They also made the exact code they used available. It is unclear whether this is an ongoing contribution or was a one-time reveal after the first time Apple built curl for MacOS, but it seems unfair to say they never contributed anything except source code and exposure for a freely-licensed tool that says on the tin that you can do exactly all of the above.

scarface74 4y ago

Why do people take time creating open source code that says anyone can use it freely and then complain when anyone uses it freely?

krapp 4y ago
Because people get jealous when they see others making money with their free code but they aren't, and they never really thought the ramification of the FOSS philosophy through.
- varjag 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure the author knew ramifications of FOSS before many his critics here were even conceived. He had decades to abandon the project, this predatory behaviour is not new.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Well seeing that I was “conceived” around September of 1973 and I first “open sourced” code by submitting it via ftp to the Mac archive site in 1993, I am almost sure that is not the case.
    - varjag 4y ago
      It's good that I qualified my statement as "many" rather than "all" then. Something an extremely attentive reader such as you surely appreciated.
jeroenhd 4y ago
Clearly they don't, the only time I've heard anything about this was when Apple forwarded support requests for the version of open source software they packaged upstream (despite the usual "no guarantees" license), which is kind of scummy for a commercial company. Not illegal or a reason for billing them any money, just pretty scummy. The GP complains that Bloomberg doesn't give away enough free money because it's a very profitable company. Apple, an even more profitable company, actually shipping the project this is about to their customers, pays even less. L If there was some kind of expectation that big companies using open source would provide any support, I'd say that yes, Apple should definitely be looked at more sternly than Bloomberg. I don't think anyone is saying that here, though.
- scarface74 4y ago
  The curl author may not “expect” anything. But they seem to complain when they didn’t get anything. > Neither me personally nor the project have ever gotten anything or any compensation from Apple.
  - varjag 4y ago
    They complain they get to effectively serve as Apple technical support, due to Apple's choice of shipping old versions of curl with their products. Which is fair.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Again they chose to release their product as open source. These are the consequences.
      - varjag 4y ago
        Releasing something open source does not mean the author has any responsibility for any amount of support, that's the "AS-IS" part of many FOSS licenses. It is ridiculous to present a certain amicability to supporting users as some form of indenture.