4 ms·

Are you referring to people who got something completely for free as "victims" because they didn't keep getting more things for free? It's an ironic take for a

Are you referring to people who got something completely for free as "victims" because they didn't keep getting more things for free? It's an ironic take for a comment that uses words like "disingenuous" and "clutching pearls". Pick a lane: either emotive arguments are in, or out. Don't accuse someone of speaking nonsense in the same comment where you claim that ceasing to provide free updates to a free product is "abuse". It's one or the other.

motorest 1y ago
> Are you referring to people who got something completely for free as "victims" (...) Anyone subjected to a bait-and-switch is a victim. It means nothing if the bait was free.
prmoustache 1y ago
> Are you referring to people who got something completely for free as "victims" because they didn't keep getting more things for free? What about the third party dev who contributed to the code on the basis it was open source?
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  They probably should not have signed a CLA?
  - prmoustache 1y ago
    Probably, but they also probably relied on trust which is the cement of most human exchanges and transactions. Without trust, there would be no software or even conputers, unrelated to the fact they are released under an open or closed source.
- nothrabannosir 1y ago
  My point isn’t “there is no perspective from which you can call anyone here a victim”. It is: “If it’s fair for you to use language like ‘victim’, then it’s fair for others to use sarcasm to make their point, and you can’t complain about it being ‘spin.’” Original GPs comment was justifiable if you allow emotive hyperbole. “Spin”. Op disagreed with the point made by GP but addressed the form in which it was made, over the actual content, while themselves using the same style. That’s not fair. Be consistent: are we being hyperbolic or are we being literal? I’m not even taking sides on the actual redis issue. “Trust was breached”? Can’t argue with that: licenses don’t cover trust and implicit agreements. But then say that, don’t say “you’re wrong for spinning things, but also <spin>”.

motorest 1y ago

> Are you referring to people who got something completely for free as "victims" (...) Anyone subjected to a bait-and-switch is a victim. It means nothing if the bait was free.

prmoustache 1y ago

> Are you referring to people who got something completely for free as "victims" because they didn't keep getting more things for free? What about the third party dev who contributed to the code on the basis it was open source?

paulryanrogers 1y ago
They probably should not have signed a CLA?
- prmoustache 1y ago
  Probably, but they also probably relied on trust which is the cement of most human exchanges and transactions. Without trust, there would be no software or even conputers, unrelated to the fact they are released under an open or closed source.
nothrabannosir 1y ago
My point isn’t “there is no perspective from which you can call anyone here a victim”. It is: “If it’s fair for you to use language like ‘victim’, then it’s fair for others to use sarcasm to make their point, and you can’t complain about it being ‘spin.’” Original GPs comment was justifiable if you allow emotive hyperbole. “Spin”. Op disagreed with the point made by GP but addressed the form in which it was made, over the actual content, while themselves using the same style. That’s not fair. Be consistent: are we being hyperbolic or are we being literal? I’m not even taking sides on the actual redis issue. “Trust was breached”? Can’t argue with that: licenses don’t cover trust and implicit agreements. But then say that, don’t say “you’re wrong for spinning things, but also <spin>”.