On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 05:21:35 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 21:29:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 17:45:59 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I wouldn't call closing source that they legally allowed to
be closed antisocial. I'd call their contradictory, angry
response to what their license permits antisocial. :)
Just because you're doing something legal doesn't mean you're
not being antisocial.
Read my previous post. Of course it's possible for a license
to technically allow something but for the authors to
disapprove of it, not that its antisocial to simply do
something they disapprove of. But, as I said earlier, the BSD
crowd does not publicly broadcast that they disapprove of
closing source. In fact, they will occasionally link to press
releases about contributions back from corporations who closed
the source.
For people using the BSD license to then get mad when yet
another person comes along to close source is the only
"antisocial" behavior I'm seeing here. It'd be one thing if
they publicly said that while the BSD license allows closing
source, they're against it. Feel free to provide such a public
statement, you won't find it. It's only after you talk to them
privately about closing source that you realize how many of
them are against it.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't much care that their behavior
is so "antisocial," :) as long as its legal to close source.
But it is pretty funny to cast that tag on somebody else, who
is simply doing what their license allows and what their press
releases trumpet.
It's a pretty psychopathic attitude to conflate legality and
morality, it's effectively saying "I have the moral right to
do whatever I can get away with"
On the contrary, it's a pretty psychopathic attitude to make
such claims about morality when
1. nobody was talking about morality
2. the BSD crowd doesn't publicly talk about their problems
with closing source either, whether they think it's immoral or
antisocial or whatever.
This is all a bit moot as I was making a general point, not
specifically related to BSD. However, in their case, I think it
is perfectly fine that some don't like closed source personally,
but as a group they decide to endorse it. A group where everyone
is forced to agree on everything isn't an organisation, it's a
cult.
I think what I'm really trying to say is this:
A license is a description of what you will *allow*, not what you
*want*.
I personally like to take in to account what people *want* me to
do, not just what they will *allow* me to do.
