101–108 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With „worse“ you mean what exactly? Probably just „not fitting my personal needs and ideas“? That doesn’t make something generally worse... or can you tell me how it’s bad for me?
Companies are usually wary of AGPL. e.g.: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always disliked the “GPL doesn’t prohibit commercial use” argument. You know well why it isn’t practical to use for commercial purposes. You basically make any project using it into an unlimited full featured free trial.
> I have always disliked the “GPL doesn’t prohibit commercial use” argument. You know well why it isn’t practical to use for commercial purposes. You basically make any project using it into an unlimited full featured free trial. I don't get it. What would be so wrong about making your source code available to everyone (including your competitors)? Remember, if your source code is AGPL and someone uses it, their sour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sharing forced by license is not good.
Why? It's worked pretty well so far. We wouldn't have free software at all without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have always disliked the “GPL doesn’t prohibit commercial use” argument. You know well why it isn’t practical to use for commercial purposes. You basically make any project using it into an unlimited full featured free trial. I don't get it. What would be so wrong about making your source code available to everyone (including your competitors)? Remember, if your source code is AGPL and someone uses it, their sour…
How competitive would Google or Facebook be if all of their code were fully open sourced?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With „worse“ you mean what exactly? Probably just „not fitting my personal needs and ideas“? That doesn’t make something generally worse... or can you tell me how it’s bad for me?
Companies are usually wary of AGPL. e.g.: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies are usually wary of AGPL. e.g.: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
That just means „not suited for everyones needs and taste“ - tge same goes for another license that a company chose. Others like it less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't label HTML and CSS as languages. Also, the fact that python code is transpiled to JavaScript, does not mean you're writing 'JavaScript', in the same way that writing C code isn't the same as writing assembly.
They're not programming languages, but they are widely considered languages. HTML stands for hypertext markup language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. Why not? I would say it is the other way around. For any web application project of decent size there is almost always a transpilation step that converts whatever programming language your source code is in, into JavaScript (usually ES5). We also had very successful and widely used projects like GWT for years (GWT was first released in 2006!!!).
Transpiling to JavaScript is a bug on the web, not a feature. node and npm is a shit show. Having to deal with it a couple days ago. I wish that entire ecosystem would just die. I can make a sophisticated python web app with 20 packages. Or in JavaScript I'll need a few hundred that have massive vulnerabilities and conflicts. Hell npm reported the most modern packages I was installing had over 200 vulnerabilities. Ja…
Ok. Now that you got this off your chest and you want to build an application that can run inside a browser (i.e. a platform available to billions)...what do you do?