contrary to what that bot in the dead message claims, the data on archive.org is not safe. anyone registering the new domain could have the data removed using proof of ownership of the domain. only if there is a human involved who is aware of the site, such a deletion request can be prevented.
If you give something away free you cannot complain if people take you at your word
that's not the problem. the problem is that the people using the software then turn around and complain about bugs. but fixing bugs in a timely manner was not included in the free giveaway.
companies shouldn't give back because they get a benefit, they should give back because they expect continued maintenance.
projects aren't short on money because they give away their code for free. they are short on money because those users demand support without paying for that.
and they can't change the license because there is no license that allows anyone to modify and redistribute the code but can demand payment for maintenance. if they change the license people would stop using it, and the project would be dead. (or forked)
GPL 3 or AGPL do not help with this problem. it might stop a few big businesses, but again, it would stop them from using it, not motivate them to pay for it. (it might, now that they are already using it, but if that was the initial license , they would never have used it to begin with.
the only way to achieve what you want would be to start with a permissive license and then change the license later. but that is not workable. it would upset and alienate to many people and motivate some to fork the project. not to forget that once you have contributors, license changes are hard to do.
> that's not the problem. the problem is that the people using the software then turn around and complain about bugs. but fixing bugs in a timely manner was not included in the free giveaway.
Agreed, but there is no obligation on them to do it. Even if they feel a social obligation they could, for example, only fix security issues that affect most users and do not have a workaround.
> GPL 3 or AGPL do not help with this problem. it might stop a few big businesses, but again, it would stop them from using it
The big businesses are the one who should pay if they use it, right? What are they going to use instead? It would be cheaper to pay a licensing fee than to develop their own alternatives to things like OpenSSL or xz (the examples given that I was replaying to).
Edit: also, if you look up the thread I was replying to someone who specifically said the problem was with MIT style licences. At the very least GPL licences will prevent them using without contributing back their own fixes and, with GPL3, also has other positive effects.
> it might, now that they are already using i
but the problem is that they are mostly not doing so, right?
it took me an hour to realize that i needed to double click to start the game. i tried switching browsers, using a vpn/proxy, turning off ublock... nothing helped...
this is how it works in other countries. if you have been a legal resident for a number of years you can apply for permanent residency or even citizenship.
the least negative reason is not very clear. do you mean "it's the least negative sentiment against the comment" or the least negative kind of comment? or do you mean "it is the least bad/wrong reason" or the best reason as in: it's better to use downvotes for disagreement than for other reasons (others should then be flagged?)?
i read it as the former, and hence upvoted your comment because i agree, but the downvotes of your comment suggest that others are reading the latter which feels wrong to me. that is of course if they actually agree with me.
Seems pretty clear what they meant. Of all the absurd, pedantic nonsense in this thread, I chose to downvote yours. Purely out of spite, and for giving me the bitter realization that I've wasted too much time on HN today.
well that just made my day. best downvote ever. for two reasons, one is the explanation itself, the other the fact that you explained it. downvotes are frustrating when you have to guess why. here, have an upvote. (if that upvote made you feel guilty for downvoting me, then that's an unfortunate side effect, not intentional ;-)
I don't think that downvotes should be used to voice disagreement with a poster's substantive point. The down arrow is too cheap a shot. I'd never have allowed that on my board (when I was a teenage sysop, I mean). Disagreement should be verbalized and put into open conversation. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to people being required to voice a reason for their downvotes around here, and letting those reasons be analyzed. It would make everyone feel better. "Pure spite" being only a funny reason in the ludicrous circle of Joseph Heller debate we find ourselves in, in this particular thread. I'm glad you saw the humor, and that's what makes us human ;)
And no, I don't feel bad at all for taking the upvote! Next time I toss out a flaming dumpster of semantic quibbling, which I'm guilty of at least once a week, I hope someone takes an extra minute to explain their downvote to me, too.
I'm just bein a pain in the ass anyway. Hope you know that. It was a barstool comment. This is why it's better to sit at a bar and joke around. Everyone gets offended in equal measure, but you know you all love each other anyway.
things were so much easier back then, weren't they?
i was there, 3000 years ago...
reply