5 ms·

If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is

by catach 1y ago

If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it. And if the original can't compete it means the additional functionality was only going to exist because the financial model of the closed fork could pay for it.

lurk2 1y ago
> If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it. Users cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about these kinds of things for the same reason that corporations cannot be trusted to be environmental stewards and children cannot be trusted to select a dinner menu or file taxes.
- CoolChum 1y ago
  Just because users don't make the same choices you do, doesn't mean those choices are invalid.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    users can only choose what is available. the license greatly affects the options that a user can choose from.
bheadmaster 1y ago
> And if the original can't compete it means the additional functionality was only going to exist because the financial model of the closed fork could pay for it. This completely disregards the fact that the "financial model of the closed fork" explicitly chose to build upon the permissively licensed original. If the company chooses to build upon free software, they should be obligated to give back to the community from which they leech. Otherwise, they should just build their own thing from scratch with all the money they've hoarded, and keep it closed.
immibis 1y ago
You know what would be even better? If the new functionality was open. The original can't compete because the original author used a permissive license. Do you want to make yourself not compete?
em-bee 1y ago
at the expense of the original developer whose work was taken advantage of without giving anything back or paying it forward.
happymellon 1y ago
That's not the only reason it would become the defacto standard, and it's naive to claim so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu... Users can get a bundled version that slowly breaks compatibility forcing vendors to align with the closed source version.
- catach 1y ago
  It would indeed be naive to make that claim, so it's a good thing that's not what I did.
  - happymellon 1y ago
    > If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it. I'm afraid you did. Users are lazy, and IE and Java on Windows are great examples.

by catach 1y ago

lurk2 1y ago

> If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it. Users cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about these kinds of things for the same reason that corporations cannot be trusted to be environmental stewards and children cannot be trusted to select a dinner menu or file taxes.

CoolChum 1y ago
Just because users don't make the same choices you do, doesn't mean those choices are invalid.
- em-bee 1y ago
  users can only choose what is available. the license greatly affects the options that a user can choose from.

bheadmaster 1y ago

> And if the original can't compete it means the additional functionality was only going to exist because the financial model of the closed fork could pay for it. This completely disregards the fact that the "financial model of the closed fork" explicitly chose to build upon the permissively licensed original. If the company chooses to build upon free software, they should be obligated to give back to the community from which they leech. Otherwise, they should just build their own thing from scratch with all the money they've hoarded, and keep it closed.

immibis 1y ago

You know what would be even better? If the new functionality was open. The original can't compete because the original author used a permissive license. Do you want to make yourself not compete?

em-bee 1y ago

at the expense of the original developer whose work was taken advantage of without giving anything back or paying it forward.

happymellon 1y ago

That's not the only reason it would become the defacto standard, and it's naive to claim so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu... Users can get a bundled version that slowly breaks compatibility forcing vendors to align with the closed source version.

catach 1y ago
It would indeed be naive to make that claim, so it's a good thing that's not what I did.
- happymellon 1y ago
  > If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it. I'm afraid you did. Users are lazy, and IE and Java on Windows are great examples.