11–20 of 89 posts
It's alpha software. It's not perfect. They're not going to get everything right on the first go, be it software bugs or maybe-too-restrictive licensing. Let's give it more than 24 hours before declaring it 'dead.'
1. It is absurd to expect to be able to make money from the work they are doing. That said, they may need to make accommodations to allow commercial plugins / complementary services. 2. The "you give your contribution to us" clause is standard in any open source project. How, for example, will they be able to update the project license if they don't own the copyright?
1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? 2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.
Where is your great, timely, mind-share grabbing, relevant-to-the-times project? I would like to contribute money towards it.
Otherwise, stop sounding like such a h8r !
Heh. The reasons given also explain why the GNU project has failed to release any influential software like GCC, the various GNU shell utilities, GNU Emacs, GDB and other such insignificant projects.
Maybe if the author started with the premise that Diaspora is more about offering an open source, secure and decentralized alternative to Facebook rather than zomg facebook killer h8 gpl mindset they might understand the situation better? Diaspora is about choice, not market share.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-p...
Heh. The reasons given also explain why the GNU project has failed to release any influential software like GCC, the various GNU shell utilities, GNU Emacs, GDB and other such insignificant projects.
1. It is absurd to expect to be able to make money from the work they are doing. That said, they may need to make accommodations to allow commercial plugins / complementary services. 2. The "you give your contribution to us" clause is standard in any open source project. How, for example, will they be able to update the project license if they don't own the copyright?
1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? 2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.
Fundraise for your own project and you can run it in any way you see fit.
Write the code yourself and you can license it in any way you see fit.
The Affero licensing prevents some commercial venture from using their code as a foundation, creating a hosted service, tacking on some proprietary candy that locks users in, and out-marketing them. I'm fine with them safeguarding against that.
1. It is absurd to expect to be able to make money from the work they are doing. That said, they may need to make accommodations to allow commercial plugins / complementary services. 2. The "you give your contribution to us" clause is standard in any open source project. How, for example, will they be able to update the project license if they don't own the copyright?
1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? 2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.
1. They didn't "make" $200,000, they got $200,000 in donations, and yes, people should be allowed to accept donations. If you don't like the terms, don't donate. I'm sure the Diaspora guys would love it if someone put up another kickstarter page accepting donations towards contributing to the Diaspora code base.
Wasn't that kinda the entire point of diaspora, to be open, this is really just the guys ensuring that it stays that way. Sure it sucks that you need to sign a contract but in order to maintain that it remains open, it needs to be restricted.
Yes i know how that sounds.
Maybe if the author started with the premise that Diaspora is more about offering an open source, secure and decentralized alternative to Facebook rather than zomg facebook killer h8 gpl mindset they might understand the situation better? Diaspora is about choice, not market share.