SuperDicq on Nostr: npub1a623h…ember left-pad?Yes, I do. I found the reasons for the developer doing ...
npub1a623hx7760fxux4shhxxjxmhq7ydkhjcw50p343y8n4w22lemrxsje00t6remember (npub1a62…mber) left-pad?Yes, I do. I found the reasons for the developer doing what they did very petty and stupid. It was a circus of shit caused mostly by the NPM repository working the way it does and allowing stuff like this to happen to in the first place.
Remember all the other times that a fully open source developer tried to defend their work, and it was taken from them?If you say things like "taken from them" you clearly do not understand free (and open source) software development.
Nothing ever gets taken from anyone. Copyright isn't property. Using words like this to describe this situation is on the same level as record labels saying online sharing is "theft" or "piracy". It is propaganda.
Defending your work from being integrated into proprietary software is done using copyleft licenses such as the GPL. This works very well in the real world.
Sure, its not FOSS, but it is open sourceNo, it is not "open source" by any acceptable mainstream definition of "open source". I recommend you read the definition of "open source" by the OSI or the Wikipedia article as a start.
and thats a layer of trust no corp will ever give.What layer of trust? Clearly Louis does not trust us at all, or he would've not chosen such a restrictive license.
If you dont take steps to protect your work, the world will take it from you, resell it, then punish you for daring say you helped.First of all nobody can take anything away from you unless they break into your house and steal your hard drive, making copies is not stealing.
And with reselling it is true that other people can resell derivative works based on your works. That's part of the freedom of free software. Why is that a bad thing? Other people deserve to make money too, right?
You also say "they will punish you for daring say you helped". I don't understand what you mean with this. If you want to be credited for your work there are plenty of free and open source software licenses that require attribution.
Remember all the other times that a fully open source developer tried to defend their work, and it was taken from them?If you say things like "taken from them" you clearly do not understand free (and open source) software development.
Nothing ever gets taken from anyone. Copyright isn't property. Using words like this to describe this situation is on the same level as record labels saying online sharing is "theft" or "piracy". It is propaganda.
Defending your work from being integrated into proprietary software is done using copyleft licenses such as the GPL. This works very well in the real world.
Sure, its not FOSS, but it is open sourceNo, it is not "open source" by any acceptable mainstream definition of "open source". I recommend you read the definition of "open source" by the OSI or the Wikipedia article as a start.
and thats a layer of trust no corp will ever give.What layer of trust? Clearly Louis does not trust us at all, or he would've not chosen such a restrictive license.
If you dont take steps to protect your work, the world will take it from you, resell it, then punish you for daring say you helped.First of all nobody can take anything away from you unless they break into your house and steal your hard drive, making copies is not stealing.
And with reselling it is true that other people can resell derivative works based on your works. That's part of the freedom of free software. Why is that a bad thing? Other people deserve to make money too, right?
You also say "they will punish you for daring say you helped". I don't understand what you mean with this. If you want to be credited for your work there are plenty of free and open source software licenses that require attribution.