5 ms·

The fact is that the developers had to write the code themselves anyway. The switch to the GPL didn't cause vendors to contribute CNID fixes, it merely let thos

The fact is that the developers had to write the code themselves anyway. The switch to the GPL didn't cause vendors to contribute CNID fixes, it merely let those specific developers feel better by sophomorically raising the proverbial middle finger to "thieving" commercial interests while they did free work anyway. Clearly the developers were interested enough to write the code themselves, in which case the fact that they preferred to fork under the GPL license is just as much happenstance as the interested OpenLDAP developers being happy with the existing BSD license. It's not as if Netatalk changed the license to the GPL and then attracted a large following of GPL-only developers.

Scramblejams 17y ago
"it merely let those specific developers feel better by sophomorically raising the proverbial middle finger to 'thieving' commercial interests" Oh man. Fine, you don't like the GPL. We get that. But to say the license change should have been irrelevant is to say that developers should be code-crapping robots with nary an expectation of a social contract. Some devs dig BSD. That's great. But some of us actually like Stallman's four freedoms and in certain situations need to see them guaranteed. Deal with it.
- antonovka 17y ago
  It's not a GPL "success story". You preferred the GPL, you were going to write the code anyway, and you did. At no point in this process was the GPL somehow conveying an advantage beyond satiating your desire to lock out external users/contributors who were potential 'thieves'. The analogy I gave earlier still fits -- you could have just as easily called new code style conventions a "success story", despite the fact that they aren't the primary driver behind getting something done. The most audacious aspect of the story is that by locking up future work via the GPL, you've done what you accuse external entities of doing: locking out previous BSD-licensed contributors from your future improvements to the project.
  - Scramblejams 17y ago
    Haha! "Thieves." "Locking out." You're just an anti-GPL zealot. If using the GPL makes me audacious, then call me audacious. Now go troll somewhere else.

Scramblejams 17y ago

"it merely let those specific developers feel better by sophomorically raising the proverbial middle finger to 'thieving' commercial interests" Oh man. Fine, you don't like the GPL. We get that. But to say the license change should have been irrelevant is to say that developers should be code-crapping robots with nary an expectation of a social contract. Some devs dig BSD. That's great. But some of us actually like Stallman's four freedoms and in certain situations need to see them guaranteed. Deal with it.

antonovka 17y ago
It's not a GPL "success story". You preferred the GPL, you were going to write the code anyway, and you did. At no point in this process was the GPL somehow conveying an advantage beyond satiating your desire to lock out external users/contributors who were potential 'thieves'. The analogy I gave earlier still fits -- you could have just as easily called new code style conventions a "success story", despite the fact that they aren't the primary driver behind getting something done. The most audacious aspect of the story is that by locking up future work via the GPL, you've done what you accuse external entities of doing: locking out previous BSD-licensed contributors from your future improvements to the project.
- Scramblejams 17y ago
  Haha! "Thieves." "Locking out." You're just an anti-GPL zealot. If using the GPL makes me audacious, then call me audacious. Now go troll somewhere else.