4 ms·
// In ST there is apparently an infinite energy source running // Think about a server farm, which rents out cpu time for linux servers. Sure, you have to pla
by rhelz 1y ago
// In ST there is apparently an infinite energy source running //
Think about a server farm, which rents out cpu time for linux servers. Sure, you have to play for energy, land, and labor. But are you saying that somehow implies that linux would have to be BSD licensed instead of GPL licensed?
I agree, energy, land, and labor are things which we don't have infinite supplies of, and therefore we need some way to ration them and distribute them efficiently. But I don't see what bearing this has on software licensing.
// If a user hostile descision is made //
Yeah, I don't see what this has to do with BSD vs. GPL or any other software license. I mean, Microsoft has been "boiling the water" forever.
// cant imagine this succeeding. Just look at the slowly shrinking market share of BSD. //
So the answer is not releasing things under the GPL? I don't quite follow the argument here, would you care to clarify?
- throwawayqqq11 1y ago> If a user hostile descision is made > I don't see what this has to do with BSD vs. GPL That is my point, license does not matter that much (and i meant the BSDs OSes). A license is not the only barrier of participation, you need to have the resources (time/money/expertise) too, and when you enter as a directly competing fork with marginal market share, you better have more resources than the parent project or otherwise your fork will not be able to keep up to with an adversarial company, trying to keep that jucy monopoly, they might have build ages ago with community contributions. Forking and maintaining a gigantic project is not really a practical option for angered hobbyists. The costs are too high or competition to harsh. IMO this is not only a problem of the GPL but of FOSS in general. Lets call it capitalistic capture.