Autor:Samantha Winifred
Wysłany: Sro Gru 14, 2022 03:19
a construction of fobya swetry a non-parasitic, non-capitalist model of creation and production, on the lines of the ancient "community" or 'tribal" efforts, the model of mutually helping and mutually benefiting individuals. If I save tens of thousands with, say, GCC toolchain plus OS and utilities, I will give back something of my efforts.3. The danger of GPL is well-recognized by the parasites, the Corporations. The essence of corporate world order, so to say, is to create economic parasitism and deflection of profits from the natural, technological flow of activities.
Therefore some time ago an "Open Source" movement spurted from unknown sources to add non-GPL licenses which would neutralize exactly the hated "viral" nature of GPL. Many do not recognize to this day that the idea behind that was to kill GPL, not to expand the falsely named "Open Source" movement.5. Now Ubuntu szar, this very Mark Shattleworth, if I got the swetry z alpaki z kapturem story correctly, blessed Mono for bundling with their Linux distro, and for the sake of truly unnecessary "personal productivity" i.e. trifle applications. And the lemmings squeak indignantly when RMS warns of the possible trojaning of Linux with MS technologies.
lines of "i usually prefer x but these are the circumstances półgolfy damskie under which i'll use y"; it's not a zero-sum game, each of these three licence categories are producing tremendous results and together they are greater than the sum of their partsAn earlier commenter made the point that 90% of WordPress' customers don't care what the license is. I'd say that's accurate for 90% of the people using any open source project. They don't care as long as free remains "free, as in cost." They aren't looking at the code, they don't know what GPL is, much less what it entails. But the 10% left does.
given that the argument we'r moherowy sweter e having involves comparing the amount of collaboration happening over each software project. What is "collaboration", other than having many disparate companies using and contributing to your source code? Should we compare the number of patches from outside companies to each? I think we both know that Linux comes up winning in every metric. If the amount of collaboration happening is something you're indifferent to, are you perhaps answering a different question than the one Daniel's post has raised?Maybe you don't want to use popularity as your major criteria for sucess.
as the two things are very much the same concept.@Otto – the debate over licenses is difficult enough when you base it no the logical premise that people who are granting their work under a specific license are doing so with full knowledge of what that means. I think it's a useful, separate conversation, whether people are liable to grant an inappropriate license for their work because of ignorance or through coercion, but it's not really pertinent to the discussion here.But those who chose a "viral" license like the GPL have their own reasons for doing so.
And for other work, having the choice of who to take that car t niebieski sweter o is important to me. Ditto for software.I think Daniel's actually making a more subtle point than "the GPL is unpopular", though — he's saying that, even though most free software projects use the GPL, they might be getting more contributions if they didn't. Since 99% of the software industry currently thinks that free software in all forms is crazy, the argument goes, that's a large pool of developers who might contribute to free software if they weren't being put off by all the presence of all the people who requir
e that their donated code shouldn't turn into non-free code later.