4 ms·
No it is not insensible if they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals. If you want your patches to be upstrea
by fsniper 13y ago
No it is not insensible if they start rejecting patches for needed features because they conflict with commercial goals.
If you want your patches to be upstream you should make sure they must be compatible with the upstream's goals. If you do not want to obey or play along with upstream you may become an upstream yourself or pay someone to be the upstream with your goals.
- makomk 13y agoExcept that danenania's comment which started this entire chain of discussion was portraying switching to software with an upstream whose goals were compatible - namely Apache - as an overreaction and somehow a betrayal of open source.
- Mikeb85 13y agoIt is a reaction, one that is perfectly acceptable. However to slam Nginx because they want to sell their product is an overreaction. Either accept that the Nginx creators can do what they want, or switch to Apache, but don't bitch about it. Whining that "X won't give me a feature for free" is ridiculous.
- GhotiFish 13y agoLikewise, forking from the mainline at the first sign of devs behaving badly is an overreaction. You don't throw out a team on the first sign of them doing something you don't like, that's crazy. There's nothing wrong with complaining about a conflict of interest. It only becomes a problem if the complaints continue, nothing changes, and no one forks. Then you and I will be telling people not to whine.