On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:53, Dennis Kane <dkan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is > called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open > source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary program > using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code > available. > > But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this!
The GPL and BSD/MIT licenses are very different. What you describe is copyleft. There's also the LGPL, which *may* be linked against or depended upon by non-GPL programs, but may *not* be extended or used to create non-GPL derivative works. And there's AGPL, which states that you may not use the software in network programs unless all those who use the software over a network *also* have access to the source. Ie, it's like GPL, with a broader definition of "distribution". The MIT and BSD licenses are much more liberal, and as far as I've ever seen, they're pretty much equivalent. They are not copyleft, and not viral. GPL is much less popular in the node community than MIT and BSD. The Apache license is similar in intent to MIT and BSD, but with additional language regarding copyrights an patents. All I'm saying is: saying "the point of open source" is like saying "the goal of american politics". There are a lot of different conflicting goals, and groups, and ideologies. Lumping it all into a single bucket loses a lot of details. In fact, many in the Free Software movement would object to even being associated with the term Open Source at all, since to them, it's more about freedom to modify and extend than having access to code, which is viewed as merely a means to an end. > I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach. > Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is > when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has > resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just > isn't. Period. There's a pattern you're matching here, which I'm sure many of us have seen many times in software communities. "I have a really awesome killer idea. This is going to change everything! No, you can't see it. But it's going to be amazing. I've put *so much* time and effort into it. I've been slaving away for years. If you come join me (which you will have to be very motivated, lucky, and exceptional for me to allow you to do), then untold riches will be yours to share!" The pattern is: 1. Vague promises of paradigm shifting software of epic proportions. (The "Noble Ambition") 2. Self-congratulatory claims of effort and sacrifice that went into its production. (The "Quest") 3. A promise to share with a special few who are up to the challenge. 4. An resistance to sharing *any* relevant details. (When pressed, reacting with indignant objections regarding principles and propriety.) I've taken to think of this as the "Genius Martyr" syndrome. It doesn't always present with crippling insanity, but that is a common pathology. It isn't always a technical idea, either; sometimes it's a new way to handle governance in the group, or a revolutionary business plan (where they're refusing to take any investment), etc. It may be that there may come a time when some GM exhibits this pattern in a technical community, and does in fact have some awesome thing. Perhaps a few GMs have ideas which are actually worth more than the paper they refuse to print them on. If that time comes, if that idea shows up, and it's presented this way, I'll probably miss out on it. Why? Because in my years in software communities, 100% of the time that this pattern has presented (and it is sadly not rare at all), the result has been the same. A few people react with interest, which then of course leads to more hinting. Finally people start pushing for proof, at which time the GM lashes out defensively, claiming that the open source community is a bunch of greedy hippies who want something for nothing, or questioning the commitment or competence of those in the community to actually contribute to the Noble Ambition. In most cases, a flame war erupts and then the GM goes away eventually, or sticks around making trouble until they're eventually banned (or the community just gots to crap, which is sadly very common.) In a few cases, someone in the group will bait the GM by feigning interest, attempting to draw out the crazy for their entertainment. I'm sure that many of us have *been* a GM at one point or another in our lives. I know I have. It was embarrassing. I survived. As a person heavily invested in the Node.js community, I really don't want to see it devolve into pointless bickering and personal insults. We just can't have that. It's not good for anyone. It doesn't lead to creativity or good will, and it tends to keep out the most productive potential members. So, Dennis, if you are serious, and you actually have a great idea, you surely must realize that you need to go create something *tangible* and *visible* before anyone will take it seriously. Because, regardless of how talented, intelligent, insightful, passionate, driven, or *right* you may in fact be, as long as you *look* like a crazy person, people will think you're crazy. The more you scream "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY", the less they will. That's just how it works. If your goal is to generate publicity for your project, or to recruit others to your cause, then I think that the facts speak for themselves, that this is not effective. You can curse the world for failing to recognize your genius, but that won't make the world recognize your genius. > The only time I get snarky is > when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has > resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just > isn't. Period. If that's the only time you get snarky, then you should not participate on this mailing list, because it is common practice here to demand and expect that bold claims come with compelling evidence, and excessive snark is not acceptable. No one cares how much torment went into your program. They care how much value comes out of it. Period. -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
