Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
2016-05-15 21:00:48 Post No. 54567092
[Report]
Image search:
[Google]
Anonymous
2016-05-15 21:00:48
Post No. 54567092
[Report]
>You don't like it, you don't use it. It's literally that simple.
>This is the same thing as with the GPL. I absolutely _detest_ people who whine about the GPL - and there are more GPL haters out there than BK haters. It's _their_ problem.
>EXACT SAME THING. Nobody has the right to whine about another persons choice of license. You have a choice: use it or don't. Complaining about the license to the author isn't part of it.
>Larry can tell you that we've discussed the BK license in private, and he definitely knows that I'd really like for it to be an open source license. But I also suspect that Larry will tell you that I haven't been whining about it - I've been trying to come up with ways it could work out for him, considering that he's got employees to take care of, and I haven't been able to come up with anything that would convince him. Fair enough.
>Because it really is his choice. Not mine. Not yours. Not Andrea's.
>And dammit, that choice is as close to "sacred" as anything can get in software development as far as I'm concerned.
>To paraphrase Voltaire - "I may disagree with your choice of license, but I shall defend to the death your right to choose it". That goes for Larry, and for the BSD people and for all the people who write software for a living using some really nasty licenses.
>And the same thing goes for users. Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested. 99% of that I run tends to be open source, but that's _my_ choice, dammit.
Has he ever been wrong?
