On 1 July 2013 18:45, Joakim <joa...@airpost.net> wrote: >> In other cases there may be a broad community consensus that builds up >> around a piece of software, that this work should be shared and contributed >> to as a common good (e.g. X.org). Attempts to close it up violate those >> social norms and are rightly seen as an attack on that community and the >> valuable commons they have cultivated. > > There's no doubt that even if they chose a permissive license like the MIT > or BSD license, these communities work primarily with OSS code and tend to > prefer that code be open. I can understand if they then tend to rebuff > attempts to keep source from them, purely as a social phenomenon, however > irrational it may be. That's why I asked Walter if he had a similar > opinion, but he didn't care. > > I still think it's ridiculous to put your code under an extremely permissive > license and then get mad when people take you up on it, particularly since > they never publicly broadcast that they want everything to be open. It is > only after you talk to them that you realize that the BSD gang are often as > much freetards as the GPL gang, just in their own special way. ;) >
To be 'retarded' is to be held back or hindered in the development or progress of an action or process. F/OSS comes with no such hindrance, unlike some other model that people falsely advertise as Everything Open and Free. All the Time!* -- Iain Buclaw *except whatever I am selling.
