Mold 1.7 Released But May Need To Change Software License If Funding Not Secured

[Anux]

Just the one Linux kernel you know of that exists in many pieces of hardware around you and continues to surpass many other options

Really? So than please give me a few links to articles about those "software sales consultants", "customer success plan" or "marketing agenda" stuff that you claimed.

Point 1 is easy to refute because Linux was written as a replacement for unix.

[skeevy420]

Who said that? Google? I'm not sure I can follow you here.

The goddamn person you originally quoted.

You can't keep up with your own conversations?

[ClosedSource]

Really? So than please give me a few links to articles about those "software sales consultants", "customer success plan" or "marketing agenda" stuff that you claimed.

Go to websites such as https://linkedin.com and you can find plenty of such jobs.

Point 1 is easy to refute because Linux was written as a replacement for unix.

Indeed it was. And today, it drives the world of technology with superior results to alternatives. The world owes a lot to Linux. Your product could be a hardware appliance, a specific-purpose operating system such as Android, or anything technically feasible.

[Anux]

The goddamn person you originally quoted.

Dude I'm not a native speaker either but you said something about "they" while ClosedSource is a single person as far as I can tell. At least get the simple grammar right befor you start to insult others.

Go to websites such as https://linkedin.com and you can find plenty of such jobs.

Shit you got me, I didn't notice you were trolling all along.

[ClosedSource]

Shit you got me, I didn't notice you were trolling all along.

Could you explain in detail please?

[stargeizer]

Too late for discussions, licence already changed to AGPL + commercial offering to business clients.

[Anux]

Too late for discussions, licence already changed to AGPL + commercial offering to business clients.

Why is it too late? It's not like the developer has requested help in this forum, he would have made his decision anyway.

What's strange, AGPL only extends the GPL with open sourcing if you provide hosting services with it. Is this an actual use case for mold (auto build on github or something)? Because it wouldn't change anything for companys using it to build their projects internaly. Also if someone uses an unmodified version of mold there would be no pressure to pay something.

I can't see how this change gives the developer any chance to sell the commercial license?

[Nille]

He should do what is best for him. And to be honest, crying that he can't live from it, even if he works full time brings no obligation for everyone else to finance his decision. the same with all the blogs where the author now want money for shallow "articles" or "content".

he should go closed source and sell it or sell his services for it. if its goes well, then he knows that a demand is there and he can think about open it up again.

[kiuRISC?]

For the record, I'm totally with Theo de Raadt on this one: GPL is not open source. If you actually MEAN to create free software, you use MIT, or the BSD equivalent. But there's just too much confusion regarding the number of clauses etc, so it's much easier to just stick with MIT. Yes, AGPL will also work, but I still prefer something simpler, so MIT all the way for me.

There are multiple very effective manners to keep ideas and their implementations imprisoned. And these methods are backed by courts, judges, armies of lawyers, REAL physical prisons, the possibility of massive financial penalties up to and including bankruptcy, and the largest collection of deadly weapons ever manufactured in the history of this planet.

If you chose to be apathetic enough to avoid reading and comprehending (and promoting) more than 2 or 3 clauses in a license that prevents imprisoning and preventing the unrestricted and obviously more rapid and participatory evolution of ideas and their implementations, then this is your choice.

But to claim that people who are not so apathetic and lazy like yourself (or de Raadt) are not vying for the ideals of freedom/liberty/open source comes off as extremely intellectually vitiated.

[kiuRISC?]

Point 1 is easy to refute because Linux was written as a replacement for unix.

Just above, you told someone to go on Wikipedia to educate themselves (and you made a point I agreed with).

But here I'd remind you to do the same. GNU was written as a replacement of UNIX, not Linux.

Linux was just a kernel from a student studying under another kernel author (who wrote MINIX). Linux is not a replacement for UNIX at all, and GNU works without it. You cannot do anything useful with only a kernel, so no kernel can replace an entire operating system.

Dude I'm not a native speaker either but you said something about "they" while ClosedSource is a single person as far as I can tell. At least get the simple grammar right befor you start to insult others.

This is a known problem with removing gendered pronouns from english. It's easier to just use "singular they" (which has a long history of legitimate usage in english) instead of neopronouns, but is still confusing grammatically in many cases (also causing your present confusion). This is why rms may have yet another legitimate point in recommending against singular they.

See:

https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html