Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will give you shit on, hardline, and selfish - my apologies. I need to slow down. By status quo I meant the closed source / proprietary world, which also supports a lot of open source projects with contributions and funding. Source available would seem, to me, to be creating an avenue to move closed things in a more open direction, and bring more people "into the fold", per sé. > And do you understand the question…
> I will give you shit on, hardline, and selfish - my apologies. I need to slow down. This was a good step. But you will not admit calling it was loaded to call people who prefer legal clarity ornery? > That question was motivated by the several comments expressing fears of being sued. I'm curious if there is a pattern of behavior among source available projects driving that, or if it's more just in principle. A lice…
I did not intend to call the person ornery, I was asking if it was that ornery to them to have to care about getting sued, and pay attention to license terms, basically. This is one area where I think there is a meaningful distinction between libraries and end-user products.
> Treating legal documents seriously is not just principle.
Treating them seriously is one thing, automatically dismissing anything that doesn't provide unfettered rights is another. I understand the high value of that in certain contexts, but should those have claim to all of "open source"?