pullmn

Spain is a majority Catholic country in part because of a widespread terroristic campaign of torturing and killing Jewish and Muslim Spanish people, carried out by the Catholic Church. What about the dignity of their lives?

Fair, I am using Redis as an example here, because I know more about (the technical side of) their product than some of the others. I think similar considerations apply to Mongo, Elastic and the others.

I'm just using piracy here to illustrate how your take is not founded in reality.

You said:

>Before we had open source, we released software as public domain. The spirit existed before the trademark phrase

You're claiming that the shareware community was a thing, and is somehow the same, or a natural predecessor to the open source community, and that the software piracy community is something completely different and unrelated.

I think this claim is just you imposing a political slant on something much more ambiguous. Arguably the BBS community as a whole was strongly pro-piracy and pro-shareware, and generally indifferent, except for small sections, to things like sharing source code.

Well, I think a lot of the people who were doing piracy would argue that they embodied the spirit of the community, and the anti-pirates were just a small minority who had a particular approach. So I don't think it's possible for you speaking alone to say what was or wasn't the spirit or the community.

Do you include piracy in this?

As I remember it the 'community' was completely divided for most of its existence between those who held that the spirit meant writing your own software and sharing that of others who had agreed to do so, and a much larger group who believed that the spirit consisted of sharing anything you wanted, including plenty of closed and for-pay commercial software.

I would say the difference between Amazon and Elastic is that Amazon has to compete in the marketplace and keep their customers happy to earn money. Elastic now has a business model where they simply own a rare thing and charge people to look at it.

First of all the 'spirit' of the new license is "you can do anything you like with the code, except if we don't want you to". Nobody knows when or whether one of these companies will turn around and say "that's now part of our business model, you can no longer do it". Perhaps they will decide that not only can Amazon not 'resell' their product, neither can anyone host it themselves, but everyone has to subscribe to their cloud service.

Secondly, although I love the Redis product for example, the company that sells it is no longer getting rewarded for their added value, as when they sold support or consultation, or as when AWS sells the fact of putting Redis on a machine and maintaining it. Instead they get paid for supplying something that no one else has, something which they have made artificially scarce.

Next, Amazon et al have resources and market power enough to push their own versions of these. Who will it serve when there's Amazon Redis, RedisLabs Redis, Community Redis, Azure Redis, all with slightly different interfaces? Who do you think will win? Amazon and Microsoft have the resources to destroy small competitors in these type of battles, and the user will be even more screwed. Just because Oracle failed with Jenkins, don't assume that no big tech is savvy enough to succeed at this game.

Lastly, free software wouldn't exist if everyone took your attitude. If Linus had told people that they could install his kernel for free, but that distros had to pay $2, Linux would never have been a thing. If you can't deal with sharing when someone else might end up putting in less and taking out more, you're not ready to share.

I disagree. I personally would prefer to license the code I write myself with a GPL copyleft or a 'no commercial use' type of license. However, I license it instead under MIT, specifically to make sure that your average corporate user will be ok using it because:

1. I would prefer that it be widely used. Not because I am seeking clout or advancement, but because that's why I share it. 2. Sharing benefits everyone, including me. Fragmentation and bureaucracy harms everyone, including me. 3. I don't support monopolistic practices by large tech, but this is not the way to stop them. What we had before widespread free software was worse than it is now, arguably held back human progress for years, and didn't stop Microsoft one bit.

Yes, I think that this article missed the point to some extent. Knowing C quite well and C++ not very well, learning the Java 'language' was quite easy. Learning the Java 'model'/'runtime' was much harder and ultimately more important.

Psychiatry is extremely committed to other forms of medication, which are in general not particularly effective, and also extremely dangerous in various ways.

Of course there are some exaggerated claims by proponents of psychedelics. But if you look at the history of psychiatric medicine over the last 70 years or so, it is basically disastrous.

Another difference is that whereas practitioners of both psychedelic drug therapy and talking therapies such as psychoanalysis have always also been patients of their own disciplines, there is no requirement for psychiatrists to have any experience of taking psychiatric medication. In fact it would generally be frowned upon.

Well, you don't need steak either, but both things are considered extremely important to human life and our society.

Yes, if you compare farmers with actors, they seem to have similar problems with stability of employment, low pay, and hard working conditions. In both cases these are partly caused by unavoidable factors about the industry, partly caused by ruthless suppliers, customers, investors and so on, partly caused (let's be honest) by the fact that many people make a lifestyle choice to do those professions, and will put up with poor conditions to keep on doing so.

However, we constantly hear about the rough deal farmers are getting and how important it is to do something to help them. And we never hear this about actors.