Well if they use VPN point to point connections managed by AWS they'll get an email per week until they die for each VPN instance from AWS that they need to put in trash so I understand them.
Trillions have been lent. What you're saying is like eating 55 burgers, 55 pizzas, 55 tater tots and then complaining that the fridge is empty and nobody will give you more food.
It's to help people realise that your advice might be wrong and they won't have any recourse against you for reparations - but in many jurisdictions, it's actually illegal to give legal advice if you're not registered e.g. regarding immigration.
I really don't get why people even start with permissive licenses if they have people they don't like to use their software or if they're just going to go "not like that" at the first real use.
It seems like many times it's open source but "just to look".
> In some extreme cases, in-development feature code was being lifted straight out of our personal forks and published without attribution or lazily rewritten with LLM assistance to obfuscate its origin.
Permissive licences require attribution. It's okay to complain when people publish your permissively-licenced work without attribution, and hence without honouring the licence.
changing the licence is much cheaper than pursuing legal action, and sends an immediate and very public signal of disapproval. given that legal remedies would be required either way, and are extremely time-consuming and expensive, it makes sense to send the signal first
Because permissive licensing, and free software in general, rightfully comes with a certain cachet, and it turns out some people want the benefits of that reputation, but don’t actually believe in the freedom “to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose.” Hence the treadmill from permissive licensing to copyleft, and then later from copyleft to “source available”…
“But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.”
No one is being forced to use or contribute back to the project though. In fact, you can even use GPL licensed software, and so long as everyone with the binaries doesn't ever request the source, you do not have to publish it at all.
The thing is for every 1 guy that just purchased it, the retargeting is getting 99 people who just looked at options and haven't purchased yet. So even if that 1% will never buy again in a short time, the whole cohort is still many times better than random non-retargeted people.
Yeah. Nowhere did I say they were actually good, but they understand that money talks and bullshit walks when they’re trying to do something unpopular. Assuming ham fisted subterfuge and bullying is sufficient is a symptom of the ludicrous amounts of hubris in this industry’s leadership.
It's incredible how every single thought you think it's yours was already had a bunch of times.
reply