3 ms·

[flagged]

pests 1y ago
> Or WP Engine, which basically lifted WordPress wholesale and gives absolutely nothing back. I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.
notpushkin 1y ago
> I 100% commend CC-BY-SA-NC and other fair source licenses. These are sustainable efforts. Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually: > DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/ https://fair.io/about/ But I do agree with the sentiment otherwise.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dokyun 1y ago
> I'm sick of open source purism. > Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us. So why don't you advocate for Free Software which has always worked in the interest of the commons and provided the GPL as a way to combat this, instead of something else that isn't free and restricts the freedom of users more than a weak license?
- jacquesm 1y ago
  Because before your know it your very much open source company called Prusa will end up being competed with by subsidized stuff from the east based on your own work.
  - dokyun 1y ago
    I don't belive in "open source", I believe in free software. So what? They make something better, so I take what they did and improve my product. It's not my problem if someone from the Big Red East does something with my work as long as they share it too.
    - dns_snek 1y ago
      Ideally, yes, but ideals go out the window when your direct competitor is being unfairly subsidized, selling their products at a loss to steal your lunch and you realize that your continued good will on the software side will be the end of your existence.
    - echelon 1y ago
      > It's not my problem if someone from the Big Red East does something with my work as long as they share it too. They also don't always do that. Look at the super popular BOOX e-ink notebooks. 100% in violation of the GPL, and has been for years, yet available to buy in common retailers such as Best Buy. These are edging out popular devices, such as reMarkable, which are GPL compliant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_Boox#GPL_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_Boox#GPL_compliance
      - dokyun 1y ago
        Uh huh. Why don't you draft me up a license that magically keeps people from violating its rules, then.
croes 1y ago
But OpenSource has a special meaning. Just give it another name that doesn’t imply wrong assumption what can and can’t do with it.

[flagged]

> Or WP Engine, which basically lifted WordPress wholesale and gives absolutely nothing back. I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.

notpushkin 1y ago

> I 100% commend CC-BY-SA-NC and other fair source licenses. These are sustainable efforts. Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually: > DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/ https://fair.io/about/ But I do agree with the sentiment otherwise.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dokyun 1y ago

> I'm sick of open source purism. > Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us. So why don't you advocate for Free Software which has always worked in the interest of the commons and provided the GPL as a way to combat this, instead of something else that isn't free and restricts the freedom of users more than a weak license?

jacquesm 1y ago
Because before your know it your very much open source company called Prusa will end up being competed with by subsidized stuff from the east based on your own work.
- dokyun 1y ago
  I don't belive in "open source", I believe in free software. So what? They make something better, so I take what they did and improve my product. It's not my problem if someone from the Big Red East does something with my work as long as they share it too.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    Ideally, yes, but ideals go out the window when your direct competitor is being unfairly subsidized, selling their products at a loss to steal your lunch and you realize that your continued good will on the software side will be the end of your existence.
  - echelon 1y ago
    > It's not my problem if someone from the Big Red East does something with my work as long as they share it too. They also don't always do that. Look at the super popular BOOX e-ink notebooks. 100% in violation of the GPL, and has been for years, yet available to buy in common retailers such as Best Buy. These are edging out popular devices, such as reMarkable, which are GPL compliant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_Boox#GPL_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_Boox#GPL_compliance
    - dokyun 1y ago
      Uh huh. Why don't you draft me up a license that magically keeps people from violating its rules, then.

croes 1y ago

But OpenSource has a special meaning. Just give it another name that doesn’t imply wrong assumption what can and can’t do with it.