3 ms·
>Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing. They are. In no way was I confused about what they are doing when
by pydry 3y ago
>Keep in mind there is a third option- CodeCov could just be honest about what they're doing.
They are. In no way was I confused about what they are doing when I read this.
It's practically speaking open source for everybody with a poison pill for companies like AWS that have successfully charged rents on open source without giving anything back (like elastic search).
Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom in order to fund the development of open source appears to make some people extremely angry.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> Restricting the hosting monopolist's freedom appears to make some people extremely angry. That's not why anyone is angry. They're angry because it's labeled "Open Source" in the title, and then turns out to be not actually Open Source.
- pydry 3y agoIt's the same thing. Theyre angry because they agree with big tech's gatekeeping of open source. You may think it's purely an apolitical question of definition but it's about as apolitical as saying "Crimea is part of Russia".
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoNo, it literally is not the same thing, and is literally not about big tech at all. It is in fact very simple: Is the thing you're calling Open Source actually Open Source, or is it not? You don't get to change what words mean because you think they should change, or because your business model isn't compatible with their real meaning but you'd really like to use them anyways.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cxr 3y ago> It's the same thing. Let's see how committed you are to that stance: just have them change it to the proposed wording. Should be no problem, since it's the same thing, right?