+1 On 28 Apr 2012, at 17:31, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
> 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 -- 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
