• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 7th, 2024

help-circle
  • The mit license allows a mix of public and commercial code run by the same company, with minimal legal issues. One can use other tactics I am sure, but this one seems good when the commercial code absolutely needs the public code .

    I think some confusion here can be resolved by stating this is anti foss, taking advantage of foss, it is capitalism taking advantage of having a good code base while making sure any contribution from outside the company is minimized. At the same time it gives my company absolute control over the private part.

    Usually get into arguments here! I’m not defending it, but am saying open source would be less without.



  • Speaking for myself, it’s because future monetization can be easier under mit when using a foss utility and private code.

    My project would not exist at all unless there were ways to make money off it.

    True, others can also use that same code too, in the exact same way, but that requires quite the investment, and those of us that are doing this are banking on not getting the interest of a monopoly in that way. We are competing against other small businesses who have limited resources.

    At the same time the free part can get a boost by the community.

    I comment a lot in politics here, and am sometimes an ass, so cannot name this project







  • Ignoring your rudeness now. It’s more like I’ve seen the same wheel invented a lot of times and can recognize most tech are basically equally functional.

    I used to make fun of cobol because it has no stack; I often wondered why such a language was ever popular, why it had so many lines of code. Now, I know there was a reason it worked, why it still is used, and can appreciate how people work with it.

    I’ve made a couple of my own languages nobody uses; so new and different languages do not overawe me as much.

    Any popular language, new or old, works well enough with it having strengths and weaknesses. Some have superiority in their libraries or ecosystems and not the core. It’s ok to choose a language based on this or that. It’s ok to mix and match languages together in one project because it’s how they talk together which makes it work, and in the larger scope of things it really does not matter which is used.

    I personally have nothing against any language, including rust.

    It’s a general trend to try to fit a specific language everywhere that irritates me, I tend to see that as a software nerd’s religion or politics instead of how much better that language is.

    And so, based on the above, is why proponents of their holy language irritate the crap out of me. And rust is certainly not the first to do that