There is no argument, dear child. There is only a value judgement being made by a silly cartoon and you suffering because you refuse to admit that you do not share those values.
Why you need to resorting to name calling and hiding yourself behind “others” just to avoid facing this uncomfortable truth, I do not know.
I argue many people don’t care about “software freedom” and MIT is better for those people.
Which is completely besides the point of the post and carries no value in the conversation.
P.S: you are still talking about “other people”. Can you try to make any value judgement and own it? How about “I don’t care about software freedom and prefer to get free stuff”?
If you want to talk about fallacies, here are some good examples:
we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy.
If it was so much better, that it justified the price, it would outcompete the free one anyway.
Failure to understand basic microeconomics
I did not write 90% of the things you claim I did.
That is true and at the same time does not contradict my point. The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses. And because you do not have anything to stand on to make an argument against the statement, you keep bringing points that do not address the main issue. When asked directly what you would do, you refuse to give a definite answer.
So what is your argument? Who is responsible for the decision-making process that leads to “hand writing an inferior solution”? Why do you think that this at all acceptable and reasonable?
You’ve been writing nothing but opinion-as-fact and resorting to wild rationalizations to justify your preferences, now you want to couch yourself under the questionable ethics of “it’s done this way and I can not fight it, so it must be the correct thing to do”?
Let’s make a simple test: if you were in charge and had the choice between spending some $$ to dual license a GPL package or to pay for the development of a GPL-only system vs paying $$$$ to do it in-house because you did not find a MIT/BSD package that does what you need, what would you do?
we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy.
What company are you working for whose leadership thinks that it is a better use of their time to reimplementing FOSS solutions just because they can’t get it “for free”?
There is no fundamental problem in working for free either. It’s second-order effects that we should worry about. Those who are “working for free” because they “just want have software being used by people” are diluting the value of the professionals and in the long term end up being as detrimental as professional designers or photographers who “work for exposure”.
If you ask me, the reason that is so hard to fund FOSS development is not because of bureaucracies, but because we are competing with privileged developers who are able to afford giving away their work for free.
I’m pretty sure that I got paid to work on GPL software, and I am pretty sure that said software would never have been developed if I wasn’t going to be paid for it.
What I don’t like is that the title minimizes the contributions of the MIT developers.
It’s not about the contribution. The MIT license still lets people study and share the code. It’s Free Software. The contribution is still there. The “problem” is that those contributions can be taken and exploited by large corporations.
You answer are reasonable justifications for why MIT is used, but they also work pretty well to illustrate the title of the post: If you are doing MIT, you are working for free. If you are working with GPL, you are working for freedom.
GPL means big corporations just won’t use it.
Great. No corporation is working on software for the freedom of its users.
they will just search for an alternative or make their own.
Or pay the developer to dual license, which can and should be the preferred way for FOSS developers to fund their work?
Might very well be interesting to people regardless of language
Then why bother with language settings at all? If people are just going to set the languages according to what they think might be relevant to the audiences, then the whole idea becomes a silly variant of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ3ETK7-ZM8
When you submit a post or comment, there is a selection box to indicate what language it is. People can choose what language they do understand to filter out content they can not / are not interested in seeing. OP has selected “English” as the language of a post that is clearly in German.
I speak German just fine. It’s for other people. What’s the point of having a language setting if people are just going to stick “English” there?
I know you are mentioning it’s in German in the comment, but how about using the properly language setting as well?
If there is one belief that I’ve held for long is that we Free Software would be in a better situation than it is today if we simply dropped the whole idea “community”, “done by amateurs” and “volunteers in their spare time” and really start treating the whole thing as a professional industry. This whole xz crisis further exacerbated this belief.
Almost everyone takes this work for granted and this is why is not properly valued. We should raise the bar at all levels: someone who wants to contribute in a project needs to show that they can deliver everything, maintainers should not accept “half-baked” proposals because “it is better than nothing”, developers should be more than comfortable sending a quote with a proper rate to someone that requests a feature.
And if those people don’t want to do any of that, then let go see how much the commercial alternative would cost them.
We used Slack and we had a Confluence Wiki. No one bothered to keep Confluence up-to-date because everyone was just used to ask ad-hoc questions on Slack and get an answer by one of the respective team members. We “solved” this issue at one company with one reasonably simple policy: people were free to ask questions on Slack as much as they wanted, but the response should always have a link to the related Confluence page. You could even answer the question directly with a TL;DR, but the Confluence Page link should always be part of the answer.
Every time that there was an Slack response without a link to Confluence, the responder’s team would get a mark, and every month the team with the most marks would have to bring something to the rest of the company. Basically, it forced everyone in the team to step up their documentation game, and it got everyone in the spirit of “collaborative editing”: sometimes, people would just write create a page with a very basic paragraph. Another team member would use that to extend the answer and so on. In just a few months, every department had a pretty solid documentation space and we even got used to start our questions with “I looked for X on Confluence and didn’t find anything. Can someone tell me where I can find info about it?”
So, yes, you are right about the disconnect between “what experienced people want” and “what beginners want”, but even in this case it would make sense if most project managers used real-time chat platforms only for initial inquiries and triage, but used this inflow to produce long-term content in a structured document or wiki.
Do you believe then that all the work from people here is pointless, and that people are just going to leave Lemmy for the next new shiny thing?
I worry that you may be right, but at the same time I can not avoid the “History repeats itself. First as tragedy then as farce”:
It frustrates me to no end to think that the average Lemmy user is carrying a very expensive iPhone, yet can not be bothered to contribute even $1/month to the developers. It honestly makes me think sometimes that they deserve all the shit that keeps happening. It’s not for lack of warning.
Discord won because (…)
I’m pretty that they had valid reasons to have achieved such a dominant position in the market. But we can say the same about every other platform. Facebook, Reddit, Microsoft, Google… All of them were once the underdog who got a good product and leapfrogged the competition. The problem is what they did after to keep this position.
There is no way to get out of this cycle unless we start championing open source solutions, even if technically inferior at first.
You will be the only one at first.
What do you achieve compared to using a throwaway account?
If you use a thrrowaway, Discord still keeps their dominant position and have no competition, so they will keep enshitifying.
If you use a bridge, more of their accounts will be just bridging bots, real users will be on the alternative networks and they will be forced to compete.
You don’t need to self host, there are servers that do this for you
One person used Matrix and they sucked.
Judging people based on the messaging platform (or vice-versa) is one of the most shallow things there is nowadays. It’s like girls who say they don’t date anyone who uses Android.
Fun fact: argument and discussion can be synonyms, but they can also have distinct meanings.
It’s amusing to see this much projection. You say that I can’t read, then proceed to misunderstand a basic sentence. You say that you don’t respond because you think I will insult you, then resort to name calling.
Let us find something better to do with our lives, ok? Have a good one.