2 ms·
Eh, I'd be disinclined to use it just because it's not open-source, but I'd kind of respect it if he'd just said "It's my code, and this is how I prefer to lice
by chc 14y ago
Eh, I'd be disinclined to use it just because it's not open-source, but I'd kind of respect it if he'd just said "It's my code, and this is how I prefer to license it." But instead he offers a positively insane rationale for making it closed-source that may as well be "Cthulhu wills it so! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh!" That makes me extremely wary of this software. Either he seems a little unstable or he's lying about why he won't open the source up. Neither is an attribute I look for in a vendor I depend on to run my servers. I might be able to tolerate the first if it were open source, but it gives me the willies here.
- eropple 14y agoSure - don't get me wrong, if he doesn't want to give out the source, that's fine. I won't use it, but that's fine. But then, like you said, he's invoking Old Ones and Providence, Rhode Island, and that is all sorts of wacky. I'm getting LoseThos vibes here a bit.
- cdcarter 14y agoThis bit of thread http://forum.gwan.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/5550/#Comment_5550 http://forum.gwan.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/5550/#... manages to sum up the entire experience of digging into G-WAN that I went through tonight. Fernandos (a veritable G-WAN groupie who hangs on the forums posting Apache vulns) starts rambling about side channel attacks, which leads to Pierre (the maintainer) describing a very romantic scene of him listening to recordings of his programs executing because he learned to visualize the code better that way.