The whole point of giving it away is that it won’t just be in his yard anymore.
that’s his right
Yep, you can argue that the carpenter is within his rights. That’s always a sign that the actor in question is behaving in a constructive way, isn’t it, when the best defense is to run directly to the finer points of what that actor is legally permitted to do?
“That’s his right” is a very narrow lens with which to view the situation. It’s not a POV you’d even choose to bring to the discussion unless you had already decided on the question. It does nothing to address the real-world problems and complaints that are happening. It’s pretty much changing the subject.
Would you make the same “within their rights” argument if the carpenter was Google? Microsoft?
people want him to build his bridge their way and keep using his bridge.
I don’t think that’s accurate. People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions. If that’s not the original rsync project run by the orginal rsync developer, no one will care much.
It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync to someone else, and to go down his AI powered rabbit hole on his own. He could have done all the stuff that was “his right” without being disruptive.
People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions.
That’s literally what forking it is for.
The guy built the bridge 20 years ago. It became a mainline thoroughfare for the entire city, and he maintained it for free. Now he’s automating it and people don’t like that. They can build their own bridges, or use the one he maintains and either contribute to the project or stop complaining about it not being up to their standards. It’s a free bridge.
Oh you’re right, you were just piggybacking on another commenter who said this:
An analogy, which is not 100% accurate, which I used to explain it to other people is, "it is not very different from a carpenter telling you, ‘the wood is here, the tools also, you can do it yourself it you didn’t like what I did’.
By saying this:
People are concerned. “My cousin fell through a trap door on the bridge yesterday!” But the carpenter is clear: “Go build your own bridge, then.”
On a post about someone comparing open-source devs making controversial decisions to pissing in free soup
That totally doesn’t add up to complaining about the quality of the open source software! Nope, you definitely have plausible deniability there, because subtext isn’t real! Duh, what was I thinking? /s
It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync
It’s his code. There is no mainline rsync. Whatever the community picks is mainline. When people didn’t like where MySQL was going, they forked and made MariaDB the “mainline”.
If people keep downloading his rsync and not another, that’s their choice. We might not like it but you can’t force people to use the software you prefer.
Every time something like this happens, there’s a community outcry: “What a shitty thing to do!”
And every time, there’s a chorus of wannabe libertarians that come crawling out of the woodwork shrieking “HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SCREW US OVER.” As if that’s a counterpoint to anything at all. As if that’s making a contribution to any conversation.
Communists understand the difference between private property and personal property.
He didn’t screw anyone over. The non ai version is still there. Demanding that he change what he has written into a form that you find acceptable is as silly as my demanding that you write a reply that agrees with me.
It’s still his bridge in his yard even if he had been letting everyone use it.
It’s not his problem. He’s handing out free bridges to everyone. But people want him to build his bridge their way and keep using his bridge.
If he wants to ruin his personal project, that’s his right.
The whole point of giving it away is that it won’t just be in his yard anymore.
Yep, you can argue that the carpenter is within his rights. That’s always a sign that the actor in question is behaving in a constructive way, isn’t it, when the best defense is to run directly to the finer points of what that actor is legally permitted to do?
“That’s his right” is a very narrow lens with which to view the situation. It’s not a POV you’d even choose to bring to the discussion unless you had already decided on the question. It does nothing to address the real-world problems and complaints that are happening. It’s pretty much changing the subject.
Would you make the same “within their rights” argument if the carpenter was Google? Microsoft?
I don’t think that’s accurate. People who rely on rsync want some kind of clear path forward, the option to use something similar in quality to the older versions. If that’s not the original rsync project run by the orginal rsync developer, no one will care much.
It would have been possible for the developer to turn over mainline rsync to someone else, and to go down his AI powered rabbit hole on his own. He could have done all the stuff that was “his right” without being disruptive.
That’s literally what forking it is for.
The guy built the bridge 20 years ago. It became a mainline thoroughfare for the entire city, and he maintained it for free. Now he’s automating it and people don’t like that. They can build their own bridges, or use the one he maintains and either contribute to the project or stop complaining about it not being up to their standards. It’s a free bridge.
You’re looking in the mouth of a gift horse.
Show me.
What? Do you not know what the expression means?
The guy maintains it for free. It’s a gift horse. You’re complaining about the quality. That’s looking the horse in the mouth.
If you don’t want this horse, find a different one or breed your own.
Show me.
Oh you’re right, you were just piggybacking on another commenter who said this:
By saying this:
On a post about someone comparing open-source devs making controversial decisions to pissing in free soup
That totally doesn’t add up to complaining about the quality of the open source software! Nope, you definitely have plausible deniability there, because subtext isn’t real! Duh, what was I thinking? /s
I can’t afford a horse! I was supposed to ride for free! Where am I gonna get a stable?!
That sucks, but open-source devs don’t have to pay for your hardware. A free horse doesn’t come with a free barn.
And if you don’t like the horse they’re offering you for free, you can either find a different horse or walk on your own two feet.
It’s his code. There is no mainline rsync. Whatever the community picks is mainline. When people didn’t like where MySQL was going, they forked and made MariaDB the “mainline”.
If people keep downloading his rsync and not another, that’s their choice. We might not like it but you can’t force people to use the software you prefer.
Every time something like this happens, there’s a community outcry: “What a shitty thing to do!”
And every time, there’s a chorus of wannabe libertarians that come crawling out of the woodwork shrieking “HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO SCREW US OVER.” As if that’s a counterpoint to anything at all. As if that’s making a contribution to any conversation.
Communists understand the difference between private property and personal property.
He didn’t screw anyone over. The non ai version is still there. Demanding that he change what he has written into a form that you find acceptable is as silly as my demanding that you write a reply that agrees with me.
Analogies are shit and don’t prove anything.
Opinions are shit and don’t prove anything.
Are you talking about your opinion?