Spain is a majority Catholic country in part because of a widespread terroristic campaign of torturing and killing Jewish and Muslim Spanish people, carried out by the Catholic Church. What about the dignity of their lives?
It’s a little more complicated, involving the invasion and 780 year foreign rule by the Moors over Spain. The Catholic resistance began immediately and eventually triumphed. And of course Catholic kings were often bad. What does that have to do with it? Secular humanists have also committed atrocities under their philosophy. They were all wrong. The Catholic Church is still the one true church.
As I remember it the 'community' was completely divided for most of its existence between those who held that the spirit meant writing your own software and sharing that of others who had agreed to do so, and a much larger group who believed that the spirit consisted of sharing anything you wanted, including plenty of closed and for-pay commercial software.
No I do not (I don't deny it was/is a thing), as I feel that was a different community (and it still exists today) - yes, the same technology was used but no, they were not/are not the same community. These are two distinct communities sharing common technology (just like Linux ISOs and pirated software are both distributed over BitTorrent today - the technology has changed but both groups still share it's use). I knew/know people from both communities, they're just two different groups of people who might happen to end up at a party together, that's about it really. I personally don't condone piracy, but then again I've been living inside Linux for 20 years so I don't really encounter it these days.
Me personally, I ran a BBS under OS/2 and was part of Fidonet (I actually roomed in college years with the local Fidonet hub guy), wrote my own widgets in TurboPascal and distributed the binaries and source without any licenses (if we even had any at the time), some of it can still be found in those old CD collections that folks used to sell. I lost my own source code over the years and was able to recover some of it out of those archives. :) (my career steered away from programming into systems engineering, not a coder by trade)
Well, I think a lot of the people who were doing piracy would argue that they embodied the spirit of the community, and the anti-pirates were just a small minority who had a particular approach. So I don't think it's possible for you speaking alone to say what was or wasn't the spirit or the community.
We're both talking about the open source community, right? This was the Parent comment I replied to and directly quoted, and I'm not seeing why you're intent on focusing on something I'm not talking about. You seem to have an axe to grind here on this specific topic of piracy, not open source.
I'm just using piracy here to illustrate how your take is not founded in reality.
You said:
>Before we had open source, we released software as public domain. The spirit existed before the trademark phrase
You're claiming that the shareware community was a thing, and is somehow the same, or a natural predecessor to the open source community, and that the software piracy community is something completely different and unrelated.
I think this claim is just you imposing a political slant on something much more ambiguous. Arguably the BBS community as a whole was strongly pro-piracy and pro-shareware, and generally indifferent, except for small sections, to things like sharing source code.
I would say the difference between Amazon and Elastic is that Amazon has to compete in the marketplace and keep their customers happy to earn money. Elastic now has a business model where they simply own a rare thing and charge people to look at it.
First of all the 'spirit' of the new license is "you can do anything you like with the code, except if we don't want you to". Nobody knows when or whether one of these companies will turn around and say "that's now part of our business model, you can no longer do it". Perhaps they will decide that not only can Amazon not 'resell' their product, neither can anyone host it themselves, but everyone has to subscribe to their cloud service.
Secondly, although I love the Redis product for example, the company that sells it is no longer getting rewarded for their added value, as when they sold support or consultation, or as when AWS sells the fact of putting Redis on a machine and maintaining it. Instead they get paid for supplying something that no one else has, something which they have made artificially scarce.
Next, Amazon et al have resources and market power enough to push their own versions of these. Who will it serve when there's Amazon Redis, RedisLabs Redis, Community Redis, Azure Redis, all with slightly different interfaces? Who do you think will win? Amazon and Microsoft have the resources to destroy small competitors in these type of battles, and the user will be even more screwed. Just because Oracle failed with Jenkins, don't assume that no big tech is savvy enough to succeed at this game.
Lastly, free software wouldn't exist if everyone took your attitude. If Linus had told people that they could install his kernel for free, but that distros had to pay $2, Linux would never have been a thing. If you can't deal with sharing when someone else might end up putting in less and taking out more, you're not ready to share.
Disclosure: I work for AWS, but I am not speaking for the company.
The Redis case study is a nuanced one. The core Redis code is BSD-3 licensed, and adopted a lightweight community governance model in June of 2020 [1]. This model includes a core team of individuals, and seeks to empower individuals who demonstrate a long-term commitment to Redis as a community-driven project.
The core team is now made up of people who currently work for Redis Labs, AWS, and Alibaba [2].
From my perspective, on the core BSD-3 licensed Redis code, it is in all stakeholders interest to collaborate on the "upstream." There's one Redis, and it is the version that is produced by the Redis development community, and Redis Labs acts as the primary sponsor and steward of the project.
Fair, I am using Redis as an example here, because I know more about (the technical side of) their product than some of the others. I think similar considerations apply to Mongo, Elastic and the others.
I disagree. I personally would prefer to license the code I write myself with a GPL copyleft or a 'no commercial use' type of license. However, I license it instead under MIT, specifically to make sure that your average corporate user will be ok using it because:
1. I would prefer that it be widely used. Not because I am seeking clout or advancement, but because that's why I share it.
2. Sharing benefits everyone, including me. Fragmentation and bureaucracy harms everyone, including me.
3. I don't support monopolistic practices by large tech, but this is not the way to stop them. What we had before widespread free software was worse than it is now, arguably held back human progress for years, and didn't stop Microsoft one bit.
Yes, I think that this article missed the point to some extent. Knowing C quite well and C++ not very well, learning the Java 'language' was quite easy. Learning the Java 'model'/'runtime' was much harder and ultimately more important.
Psychiatry is extremely committed to other forms of medication, which are in general not particularly effective, and also extremely dangerous in various ways.
Of course there are some exaggerated claims by proponents of psychedelics. But if you look at the history of psychiatric medicine over the last 70 years or so, it is basically disastrous.
Another difference is that whereas practitioners of both psychedelic drug therapy and talking therapies such as psychoanalysis have always also been patients of their own disciplines, there is no requirement for psychiatrists to have any experience of taking psychiatric medication. In fact it would generally be frowned upon.
Yes, if you compare farmers with actors, they seem to have similar problems with stability of employment, low pay, and hard working conditions. In both cases these are partly caused by unavoidable factors about the industry, partly caused by ruthless suppliers, customers, investors and so on, partly caused (let's be honest) by the fact that many people make a lifestyle choice to do those professions, and will put up with poor conditions to keep on doing so.
However, we constantly hear about the rough deal farmers are getting and how important it is to do something to help them. And we never hear this about actors.
