4 ms·
Well, those diligent users can reimplement the software if they don't like it. It's only the implementation that's got that clause, not the spec. Obviously tha
by archangel_one 14y ago
Well, those diligent users can reimplement the software if they don't like it. It's only the implementation that's got that clause, not the spec.
Obviously that's not easy for them to do, but nobody says they have to use his implementation if they don't like the terms it's licensed under.
- andreasvc 14y agoYou're painting a picture of a way out that doesn't exist for most people (reverse straw man?). When it's about a library on which a lot of software depends then the common non-programmer has had absolutely no choice about this and cannot re-implement either.
- archangel_one 14y agoRight, but that's not the fault of the original author. He licensed his code a particular way, and everyone else has the choice to either use it or not. I don't like the attitude of blaming him simply because lots of other people came to depend on it without realising that it's less free than some of them might have liked.
- WayneDB 14y agoMaybe we don't have to blame him for anything, but we can still have the opinion that he's a childish asshole.
- TeMPOraL 14y agoBut why? I personally think that his joke was, in fact, funny.
- sbuk 14y agoArguably the same can be said for people that feel the urge to do so, doubly so for calling it "evil".
- irahul 14y ago> but we can still have the opinion that he's a childish asshole. We can also have the opinion that people who believe that someone who wrote a free software and gave the implementation for free should play by their rules and only use license which plays nice with their software are childish, entitled assholes.
- darkarmani 14y agoWhat would most people do if the software just didn't exist?
- curiousdannii 14y agoLuckily JSON 3 exists! http://bestiejs.github.com/json3/ http://bestiejs.github.com/json3/