31–39 of 39 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, companies don't care about introducing proprietary lock-in. They do it all the time with services and infrastructure. It's all excuses. They just don't want to pay for software.
Lot’s of companies pay for software. E.g. Windows Server and SQL Server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still radioactive, just to a different group of people now and weaponized (see Mongo, Elastic, et al). I also think GPL compliance is a looming major problem for organizations and most haven't realized it yet. We have seen a few folks try to monetize GPL compliance the last few years...netfilter, I'm looking at you. And this is why many of us prefer open source software to free software.
You mean you prefer permissive over copyleft. Most open source licenses are free software and vice-versa.
There's a history here and important points of distinction. The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean you prefer permissive over copyleft. Most open source licenses are free software and vice-versa.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Copyleft software compels certain things. There's a history here and important points of distinction. The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.
You seem to agree, though.
> Copyleft software compels certain things.
Yes, and that's what you were complaining about and why it seems that what you really prefer is permissive licenses over Copyleft licenses.
But open source software/licenses and free software/licenses are essentially identical sets (essentially all open source licenses, whether permissive or copyleft, are also free software licenses, and vice versa.) So preferring open source over free software is meaningless, they are the same thing.
> The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.
For political reasons that have nothing to do with what licenses meet the definitions each organization establishes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Copyleft software compels certain things. There's a history here and important points of distinction. The OSI and FSF are separate organizations for a reason.
> Sorry, but I don't agree. You seem to agree, though. > Copyleft software compels certain things. Yes, and that's what you were complaining about and why it seems that what you really prefer is permissive licenses over Copyleft licenses. But open source software/licenses and free software/licenses are essentially identical sets (essentially all open source licenses, whether permissive or copyleft, are also free soft…
You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just trying to be nice, but I guess that's not possible.
Also, from this wikipedia article here [1]: "The Free Software Foundation has related but distinct criteria for evaluating whether or not a license qualifies software as free software. Most free software licenses are also considered open-source software licenses." According to them, A does not always equal B here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, companies don't care about introducing proprietary lock-in. They do it all the time with services and infrastructure. It's all excuses. They just don't want to pay for software.
Lot’s of companies pay for software. E.g. Windows Server and SQL Server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sorry, but I don't agree. You seem to agree, though. > Copyleft software compels certain things. Yes, and that's what you were complaining about and why it seems that what you really prefer is permissive licenses over Copyleft licenses. But open source software/licenses and free software/licenses are essentially identical sets (essentially all open source licenses, whether permissive or copyleft, are also free soft…
I'm sorry but in the context of this "A vs B" discussion, anyone with sense knows exactly what point of distinction I'm talking about and perhaps my choice of words is because I don't want to give in to the FSF's chosen term of Copyleft but perhaps I didn't want to be completely incendiary in the discussion and call it what it is, a viral license, either. You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just…
Sorry, I had no intention of being rude; I just dislike the misconception that permissive licenses are not Free Software, because it turns people who dislike copyleft against the whole concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry but in the context of this "A vs B" discussion, anyone with sense knows exactly what point of distinction I'm talking about and perhaps my choice of words is because I don't want to give in to the FSF's chosen term of Copyleft but perhaps I didn't want to be completely incendiary in the discussion and call it what it is, a viral license, either. You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just…
> You're both just choosing to be pedantic about it. I was just trying to be nice, but I guess that's not possible. Sorry, I had no intention of being rude; I just dislike the misconception that permissive licenses are not Free Software, because it turns people who dislike copyleft against the whole concept.
I'd like to see folks get more educated about what their license options are and the implications of using them in general.
I love Datomic, think it can be revolutionary and use it in my side projects. I understand their need to make a living off of their (brilliant, unique) labor and so keep it closed source. But the big bananas at my company are reluctant to try something so different. With Clojure I can push them over that hump since it's open source. But they are not willing to introduce proprietary lock-in of such a fundamental piece…
In my experience, companies don't care about introducing proprietary lock-in. They do it all the time with services and infrastructure. It's all excuses. They just don't want to pay for software.
edit: typo
The state of documentation is a dealbreaker for me. I could not understand how to use Datomic just from docs. It lacked code snippets, examples of different ways to use it.
The ClojureDocs solved this in a beautiful way with crowd-sourced collection of use-cases. ClojureDocs API pages manage to seamlessly present the core principles along with user-contributed annotated code snippets. Learning from examples is most effective way of learning.
My favorite: https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/reduce