4 ms·

Very little is obsolete that fast. I don't think it shows a lack of respect for my freedom. The goal is to place some (rather minor) restrictions on businesse

Very little is obsolete that fast. I don't think it shows a lack of respect for my freedom. The goal is to place some (rather minor) restrictions on businesses, and businesses are not people.

jraph 1y ago
> Very little is obsolete that fast Isn't two years of security patch lag a big deal?
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  It's a dev tool that isn't taking untrusted input, right? Then no, I don't think security patches are a big deal. Also I feel like "obsolete" is the wrong word for that.
- imtringued 1y ago
  Other than puritanism, what exactly stops you from using the FSL version? It's not like you're a hyperscaler hosting their product as a SaaS.
  - jraph 1y ago
    What you call puritanism is a fight for user software freedom to be recognized as a fundamental right. Your phrasing is malicious. It waves off a 40 year fight from many reasonable people as extreme and ridiculous, or as religious-like. Did you expect me to answer "no, nothing else than puritanism" to your question? Well, I won't.
    - x0x0 1y ago
      So you can use it just fine but because aws would have to pay to resell it you won't.
      - jraph 1y ago
        Again, that's a terrible presentation of the situation. It makes me look like I defend AWS. That's like saying that although I could, I won't vote for candidate C who is against the freedom of the press when candidate C would prevent awful newspaper N from publishing its horrible bullshit. I'd prefer newspaper N not to publish bullshit, or even to not exist at all, but I wouldn't want this to cost the freedom of the press. AWS doing terrible things shouldn't cost us user software freedom. Yes, indeed, there's stuff that I will do or won't do out of principles, of course! Even if it would be convenient to do otherwise! Is this an alien concept? How is this difficult to understand that someone doesn't want compromises on rights that ought to be fundamental?
        x0x0 1y ago
        Since the supposed software freedom only affects resellers, one way to "look" less like you're out here defending aws would be to not spend 8+ posts defending aws.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    It puts you in bed with a community where you're too locked in. If there's only one provider that's allowed to sell an online SaaS-based version of the software, then if they do a poor job of hosting it, or don't host it in a configuration that suits my needs, I literally have no choice. I've written about this in other comments, but this happened to me in 2015 hosting Elasticsearch and the official Elasticsearch hosting offering just didn't support CPU configurations that were proper for geohashing heavy workloads. I had to switch to AWS to get that. They even talked to the head of sales, and they said, yeah, we're working on it, but right now your best bet is to switch. Under a license like this, that wouldn't be possible.
    - pastel8739 1y ago
      You can host it yourself, right?
      - gr4vityWall 1y ago
        But they can't pick a vendor who may host it better than the original authors. And the only reason for that is because the authors maybe would make less money that way.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        "maybe would make less money" could be a catastrophic undermining of their business model, also ruining their ability to continue development, so I am very sympathetic to that reason. Being stuck between "host it yourself" or "don't have the latest features" is pretty far from a rock and hard place.
        watwut 1y ago
        I am even confused about this dichotomy. Like, who is NOT hosting liquibase himself? It is a dev tool.
rester324 1y ago
That statement is not so true as you think it is though. Legal entities as companies for example are juridical persons in most countries. This principle is called company personhood.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  That was already incorporated into what I said. I phrased it the way I did on purpose.
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  Companies are legal entities with similar properties to people according to some parts of the law, but they're not people. Companies cannot be arrested, companies do not need to eat food, and companies do not retire. They have a small set of human rights and obligations without any human properties. Companies share an abstraction with people when it comes to some part of the legal system. Company personhood and its implications and restrictions differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in countries like the USA the exact definition is still a matter up for debate.
sneak 1y ago
Businesses are indeed people; they cannot think or act or plan or do. They are groups of people acting in concert. Without people, there are no businesses. Without people, there are no business initiatives, no products, no sales, no profits, no shareholders. Businesses are precisely and exactly people.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  When I said businesses are not people, I was pluralizing the claim that a business is not a person. Yes a business is made out of people, but that's a very different thing from what I was talking about. (And please don't mention sole proprietorships, what I meant should be plenty clear now.)
  - rester324 1y ago
    Except the fact that as I explained to you in another comment this is not true. Businesses are a person. Not the ordinary natural person, but a juridical person
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      Which is not a person. We're talking about freedoms, not the ability to interact with the legal system.

Very little is obsolete that fast. I don't think it shows a lack of respect for my freedom. The goal is to place some (rather minor) restrictions on businesses, and businesses are not people.

jraph 1y ago

> Very little is obsolete that fast Isn't two years of security patch lag a big deal?

Dylan16807 1y ago
It's a dev tool that isn't taking untrusted input, right? Then no, I don't think security patches are a big deal. Also I feel like "obsolete" is the wrong word for that.
imtringued 1y ago
Other than puritanism, what exactly stops you from using the FSL version? It's not like you're a hyperscaler hosting their product as a SaaS.
- jraph 1y ago
  What you call puritanism is a fight for user software freedom to be recognized as a fundamental right. Your phrasing is malicious. It waves off a 40 year fight from many reasonable people as extreme and ridiculous, or as religious-like. Did you expect me to answer "no, nothing else than puritanism" to your question? Well, I won't.
  - x0x0 1y ago
    So you can use it just fine but because aws would have to pay to resell it you won't.
    - jraph 1y ago
      Again, that's a terrible presentation of the situation. It makes me look like I defend AWS. That's like saying that although I could, I won't vote for candidate C who is against the freedom of the press when candidate C would prevent awful newspaper N from publishing its horrible bullshit. I'd prefer newspaper N not to publish bullshit, or even to not exist at all, but I wouldn't want this to cost the freedom of the press. AWS doing terrible things shouldn't cost us user software freedom. Yes, indeed, there's stuff that I will do or won't do out of principles, of course! Even if it would be convenient to do otherwise! Is this an alien concept? How is this difficult to understand that someone doesn't want compromises on rights that ought to be fundamental?
      - x0x0 1y ago
        Since the supposed software freedom only affects resellers, one way to "look" less like you're out here defending aws would be to not spend 8+ posts defending aws.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  It puts you in bed with a community where you're too locked in. If there's only one provider that's allowed to sell an online SaaS-based version of the software, then if they do a poor job of hosting it, or don't host it in a configuration that suits my needs, I literally have no choice. I've written about this in other comments, but this happened to me in 2015 hosting Elasticsearch and the official Elasticsearch hosting offering just didn't support CPU configurations that were proper for geohashing heavy workloads. I had to switch to AWS to get that. They even talked to the head of sales, and they said, yeah, we're working on it, but right now your best bet is to switch. Under a license like this, that wouldn't be possible.
  - pastel8739 1y ago
    You can host it yourself, right?
    - gr4vityWall 1y ago
      But they can't pick a vendor who may host it better than the original authors. And the only reason for that is because the authors maybe would make less money that way.
      - Dylan16807 1y ago
        "maybe would make less money" could be a catastrophic undermining of their business model, also ruining their ability to continue development, so I am very sympathetic to that reason. Being stuck between "host it yourself" or "don't have the latest features" is pretty far from a rock and hard place.
        watwut 1y ago
        I am even confused about this dichotomy. Like, who is NOT hosting liquibase himself? It is a dev tool.

rester324 1y ago

That statement is not so true as you think it is though. Legal entities as companies for example are juridical persons in most countries. This principle is called company personhood.

Dylan16807 1y ago
That was already incorporated into what I said. I phrased it the way I did on purpose.
jeroenhd 1y ago
Companies are legal entities with similar properties to people according to some parts of the law, but they're not people. Companies cannot be arrested, companies do not need to eat food, and companies do not retire. They have a small set of human rights and obligations without any human properties. Companies share an abstraction with people when it comes to some part of the legal system. Company personhood and its implications and restrictions differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in countries like the USA the exact definition is still a matter up for debate.

sneak 1y ago

Businesses are indeed people; they cannot think or act or plan or do. They are groups of people acting in concert. Without people, there are no businesses. Without people, there are no business initiatives, no products, no sales, no profits, no shareholders. Businesses are precisely and exactly people.

Dylan16807 1y ago
When I said businesses are not people, I was pluralizing the claim that a business is not a person. Yes a business is made out of people, but that's a very different thing from what I was talking about. (And please don't mention sole proprietorships, what I meant should be plenty clear now.)
- rester324 1y ago
  Except the fact that as I explained to you in another comment this is not true. Businesses are a person. Not the ordinary natural person, but a juridical person
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    Which is not a person. We're talking about freedoms, not the ability to interact with the legal system.