3 ms·

This sucks and I feel for the maintainer, but it really is their own fault for publishing as MIT. However, that is a pretty common mistake that most people neve

by bogwog 1y ago

This sucks and I feel for the maintainer, but it really is their own fault for publishing as MIT. However, that is a pretty common mistake that most people never learn until they've been screwed by it. The OSI have done a good job at convincing devs to open themselves up to exploitation for the benefit of big tech companies, and I find it hard to fault people for falling for that. The social pressure is very high. But giving a (presumably) free consultation to Microsoft is a self-own. History has shown that you should never give the benefit of the doubt to Microsoft, and you should certainly never trust them (unless you have a contract and a good lawyer). Not knowing this can only be the result of willful ignorance. I can't offer sympathy for that. Hopefully, this person learned the right lessons from this experience.

hinkley 1y ago
Open source is very much like a party. You are perfectly entitled to expect the host to be gracious and the guests not to steal things. “It’s your fault for inviting them in” is victim blaming and horizontal aggression. The people at the top of the pyramid love it when the peasants fight each other. Saves them getting callouses.
- bogwog 1y ago
  What a terrible take. This is the kind of "social pressure" I was talking about. Open source licensing isn't a party, it's a business decision you make as a participant in the intellectual property economy. If you make a stupid and/or uninformed decision, you're opening yourself up to exploitation. It is victim blaming because this situation is entirely the victim's fault. I don't even know what you mean by "horizontal aggression", and your comment about peasants makes no sense in this context. How does advocating that people be informed and use appropriate licenses count as in-fighting, or beneficial to big tech companies? If anything it's literally the opposite.
  - hinkley 1y ago
    You're blaming an author who offered his code to others (that's a social act) instead of a trillion dollar company. What do you think I mean by horizontal aggression?
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Open source is a licensing scheme, not a party.

by bogwog 1y ago

hinkley 1y ago

Open source is very much like a party. You are perfectly entitled to expect the host to be gracious and the guests not to steal things. “It’s your fault for inviting them in” is victim blaming and horizontal aggression. The people at the top of the pyramid love it when the peasants fight each other. Saves them getting callouses.

bogwog 1y ago
What a terrible take. This is the kind of "social pressure" I was talking about. Open source licensing isn't a party, it's a business decision you make as a participant in the intellectual property economy. If you make a stupid and/or uninformed decision, you're opening yourself up to exploitation. It is victim blaming because this situation is entirely the victim's fault. I don't even know what you mean by "horizontal aggression", and your comment about peasants makes no sense in this context. How does advocating that people be informed and use appropriate licenses count as in-fighting, or beneficial to big tech companies? If anything it's literally the opposite.
- hinkley 1y ago
  You're blaming an author who offered his code to others (that's a social act) instead of a trillion dollar company. What do you think I mean by horizontal aggression?
pessimizer 1y ago
Open source is a licensing scheme, not a party.