|
darthbob88 posted:Eh, makes sense to me. Of course somebody obsessed with personal freedom would go into free software. "You can't tell me what to do with my own software, Bill Gates!" or something like that. I don't see john galt handing out the blueprints to his inventions to anyone who feels like manufacturing them
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
Mr Dog posted:Modern open source seems to be largely driven by the raging torrent of stupid rich people money coursing through the sector right now. Making open source boosts ego and career prospects despite not generating much value for the person financing it, but the people financing it just throw money at everything software related these days so i guess startup people dick off making oss on account of nobody reigning them in. modern open source is largely driven by the fact that the people who actually write the code are personally interested in making it so. either they want the prestige of running a well known oss project, or it's part of their moral code like the rms types, whatever. so they ask the boss if they can open source some library that the company has no interest in selling anyway. company figures they'll get some free exposure on their tech blog from the release, and they'd rather the programmer who probably spent his weekends writing the thing not defect to googamafacesoft, so they let him do it. win win
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
HoboMan posted:also please make programming into a profession for uncool losers again tia i think that's how tinder was invented
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:I don't see john galt handing out the blueprints to his inventions to anyone who feels like manufacturing them
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:Modern open source seems to be largely driven by the raging torrent of stupid rich people money coursing through the sector right now. Making open source boosts ego and career prospects despite not generating much value for the person financing it, but the people financing it just throw money at everything software related these days so i guess startup people dick off making oss on account of nobody reigning them in. which projects are examples of this? which are very far from the model proposed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Valeyard posted:you mean an MSci? A MEng with honors （＾－＾）
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:I don't see john galt handing out the blueprints to his inventions to anyone who feels like manufacturing them
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
gpl is restrictive as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
ITT: shaggar knows more about the open source than everyone else 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Yeah, but I also don't see John Galt accepting an Apple-grade license attached to his code, or any code he uses. It's his product, nobody can tell him what he can and cannot do with it. So he fucks off to FOSS Freehold, a land without restrictive software licenses, where the coder need not fear the lawyer, where developers are not bound by dress code or deadlines, and the productive are not constrained by the managers. oh yeah that's a really good point Shaggar posted:gpl is restrictive as gently caress so is that i think it's just like any other libertarian view point: someone who is fully willing to reap the benefits of a system without feeling any obligation to contribute anything back. like, for instance, esr.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
ESR types are worthless people who couldn't hack it in a real company so open sores is a place where they can easily claim a fiefdom and shout down their "oppressors". gpl is a way for them to say "no gently caress YOU, DAD! you cant use my code" even though nobody wants their code. all the actually relevant open sores projects have either corporate backing or are maintained by corporate workers as shared libs for each others benefits at their corporate jobs. These projects are all licensed with actual free licenses like apache, mit, bsd, or ms-pl.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
lol .net/asp.net is licensed under mit instead of ms-pl
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:i dont think anyone contributes to open source for purely selfless reasons, but even so, it still inherently subverts the foundation of capitalism: that money and competition are the only way to drive innovation. clearly, people are very driven to innovate for no reason other than it feels good to create things. that is not "the foundation of capitalism"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Yeah, but I also don't see John Galt accepting an Apple-grade license attached to his code, or any code he uses. It's his product, nobody can tell him what he can and cannot do with it. So he fucks off to FOSS Freehold, a land without restrictive software licenses, where the coder need not fear the lawyer, where developers are not bound by dress code or deadlines, and the productive are not constrained by the managers. I feel like there's a parallel to be drawn between OSS approach to interface design and how libertarians approach critical infrastructure like roads/water/etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:that is not "the foundation of capitalism" yeah i made that post with a strong sense of 'oh boy i'm pretty sure this is wrong and sounds stupid but maybe it's actually smart and should not be deleted'
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
the foundation of capitalism is figuring out ever more novel ways to shovel more and more money to a wealthy few while avoiding guillotines
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
gpl is bad, mit and apache should be good enough for anybody
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
that said I have a fsf membership card...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:gpl is bad, mit and apache should be good enough for anybody mit is for masochists that love getting poo poo on by corporations
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
please take my software and poz my neg hole ~ an mit license user
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
why would i care so strongly about how other people use the poo poo i give away for free
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
I know a bunch of projects written and ran by undergrads and students from various universities and publishing their work as part of dissemination. I've seen them require GPL so that their contributions can be used by anyone, but that work that builds upon their research must also be kept public. I think this is fine and I have a great time seeing all the corporate types pull their hair and complain about the license and ask for a more lax license so they can make a buck from it without sharing back. I also enjoy being able to work in open source so that if I leave whatever job I have, the work I've done doesn't disappear in a sinkhole and can be reused in other projects, whether public or not. But I tend to open source libraries rather than fully functional software.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
all my personal stuff is gpl, while my employer's stuff is usually apache
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:which projects are examples of this? which are very far from the model proposed? probably like 90% of the poo poo in the node and ruby "ecosystem"s startup kids bikeshedding three mvc frameworks in as many quarters without shipping any actual product Sapozhnik fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
which open source licence pisses off RMS the most? whatever it is you should use that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:which open source licence pisses off RMS the most? whatever it is you should use that. http://www.wtfpl.net/
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
^^^ famously used by critical web infrastructure project leftpad.js  Bloody posted:why would i care so strongly about how other people use the poo poo i give away for free hypothetically, if $corporation likes your gpl library and wants to use it in a closed-source project, you can offer to grant them a separate commercial license to the library for a price with a non-restrictive license you can't sell them poo poo, they're free to take it in practice what actually happens is that the worthless suits at $corporation just tell their slaves "hello cocksuckers, you have to work 80 hours next week too to duplicate an already-existing solution because the lawyers say we can't use that one", but that's no reason to make things easier for them
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
our solution is to just secretly use the gpl code anyway and blame "patent trolls" when we get sued
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:^^^ famously used by critical web infrastructure project leftpad.js corporations aren't going to contribute back to non-restrictive licenses anyways so using the gpl is basically like saying "this is mine. nobody touch it". the only people who might contribute are other amateurs. and tbh I cant think of the last time I saw a worthwhile project that used gpl. all the good open sores stuff uses non-restrictive licenses and they get actual bug fixes and enhancements because people are actually using them irl.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:and tbh I cant think of the last time I saw a worthwhile project that used gpl. all the good open sores stuff uses non-restrictive licenses and they get actual bug fixes and enhancements because people are actually using them irl. I was going to say linux but then I saw who I was replying to not even shaggar can deny that linux does get actual bug fixes and enhancements and is actually used irl despite being gpl tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:which open source licence pisses off RMS the most? whatever it is you should use that. probably the ABRMS license
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
what's the yospinion on the lgpl
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
its fine for libraries, even though the l actually stands for 'lesser'
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
I will never not think RMS stands for root-mean-square
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
rms is a Pure Perfect Boy and i will not have the 'pos denigrate him
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
also with so many things moving into my butt the distinction between gpl and mit is academic for an increasing number of projects lmao forever @ the agpl
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:rms is a Pure Perfect Boy and i will not have the 'pos denigrate him
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:modern open source is largely driven by the fact that the people who actually write the code are personally interested in making it so. either they want the prestige of running a well known oss project, or it's part of their moral code like the rms types, whatever. so they ask the boss if they can open source some library that the company has no interest in selling anyway. company figures they'll get some free exposure on their tech blog from the release, and they'd rather the programmer who probably spent his weekends writing the thing not defect to googamafacesoft, so they let him do it. win win i don't see anything wrong with this picture open source benefits everyone involved, that's why it's a thing
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
the more the code I write helps other people build things they release, the more I get back out of it. It's investing in the ecosystem you make use of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
having a public display of your bad code beats out needing to do more bullshit in your spare time or dumb coding puzzles just to get to a second or third stage interview
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:57
|
|
