The irony is having to use one kind of licensed tool on another diametrically opposed type of licensed tool.
Its not how the tool is used (as you described), but the licensing of the tool, versus the licensing of the tool its being used on.
That seems self-evident, considering I went out of my way to express the licensing in my original comment. But, if you have a better word for me to use than ironic, please let me know.
I guess if you think it’s ironic then you do you. I’ve been using OSS software to make proprietary OSes not suck for over 2 decades, and that’s exactly one of the things I expect it to do.
I don’t. People use non-proprietary tools to repair proprietary things all the time. Screwdrivers and hammers and soldering irons all are open tools that are used to build and maintain proprietary physical objects. I can’t see any irony in it because I can’t see it any other way. Imagine that GM built cars using only tools that were hidden behind a trade secret, and mechanics and end users were forced to use those same tools. Seems far fetched, doesn’t it? It does to me at any rate.
The irony is having to use one kind of licensed tool on another diametrically opposed type of licensed tool.
Its not how the tool is used (as you described), but the licensing of the tool, versus the licensing of the tool its being used on.
That seems self-evident, considering I went out of my way to express the licensing in my original comment. But, if you have a better word for me to use than ironic, please let me know.
I guess if you think it’s ironic then you do you. I’ve been using OSS software to make proprietary OSes not suck for over 2 decades, and that’s exactly one of the things I expect it to do.
You honestly see no irony, license-wise, in using an open source product to repair/modify a closed source product?
At all?
No one is disputing that. That’s not the point being made.
I don’t. People use non-proprietary tools to repair proprietary things all the time. Screwdrivers and hammers and soldering irons all are open tools that are used to build and maintain proprietary physical objects. I can’t see any irony in it because I can’t see it any other way. Imagine that GM built cars using only tools that were hidden behind a trade secret, and mechanics and end users were forced to use those same tools. Seems far fetched, doesn’t it? It does to me at any rate.
Again, it’s not how the tool is used, or what the tools used on, it’s the licensing difference, that is the irony.
That closed source products have to rely on open source products, to be modified to work well.