4 ms·

It is not proprietary. I think that is the real reason: if it's not FOSS, people dismiss it out of hand. Also, I was hamstrung by Show HN rules.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> Note that while Rig is a commercial project, everyone, including any company, is free to try it for 30 days, and as long as companies meet the criteria for contacting me, I am open to helping them with Rig for free for 30 days. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39904895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39904895 > Proprietary software is software that grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms. > [...] > Proprietary software may either be closed-source software or source-available software. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software It sure sounds proprietary. In any event, yes, if you prefer I can phrase that as "I'm not going to use a build system that's not Open Source without an incredibly compelling reason".
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  No, it's not proprietary. End users are not restricted from modifying it and sharing their changes, so long as it is not for a commercial purpose. Therefore, it is not a monopoly to share and modify and not proprietary. And the fact that you and others won't is exactly why xz happened and why we might lose FOSS completely.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > And the fact that you and others won't is exactly why xz happened and why we might lose FOSS completely. As opposed to your approach, which... is also not FOSS. But this is a fun thread to pull: You wish to argue that it's necessary to force payment for commercial use of code. Fine; I disagree but that can be coherent. Are you doing that? Your project is commercial. Are you paying the authors of your compilers? Are you paying the authors of the open source code I see copied into your source tree? Or is it just your code that people have to pay for in order to avert the next xz?
    - gavinhoward 3y ago
      I have a list of software that I was going to throw money at, yes. Starting with direct dependencies. Am I doing it now? No, because I can't afford to. Because people want a free lunch from my software.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> Note that while Rig is a commercial project, everyone, including any company, is free to try it for 30 days, and as long as companies meet the criteria for contacting me, I am open to helping them with Rig for free for 30 days. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39904895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39904895 > Proprietary software is software that grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms. > [...] > Proprietary software may either be closed-source software or source-available software. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software It sure sounds proprietary. In any event, yes, if you prefer I can phrase that as "I'm not going to use a build system that's not Open Source without an incredibly compelling reason".

gavinhoward 3y ago
No, it's not proprietary. End users are not restricted from modifying it and sharing their changes, so long as it is not for a commercial purpose. Therefore, it is not a monopoly to share and modify and not proprietary. And the fact that you and others won't is exactly why xz happened and why we might lose FOSS completely.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > And the fact that you and others won't is exactly why xz happened and why we might lose FOSS completely. As opposed to your approach, which... is also not FOSS. But this is a fun thread to pull: You wish to argue that it's necessary to force payment for commercial use of code. Fine; I disagree but that can be coherent. Are you doing that? Your project is commercial. Are you paying the authors of your compilers? Are you paying the authors of the open source code I see copied into your source tree? Or is it just your code that people have to pay for in order to avert the next xz?
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    I have a list of software that I was going to throw money at, yes. Starting with direct dependencies. Am I doing it now? No, because I can't afford to. Because people want a free lunch from my software.