Oh man this takes me way back. VB’s pick and drop UI builder was so magical. I used to do complex wizard based forms that are probably terrible if I look at them now (If I still preserved them… unfortunately I didn’t) but at the time they looked professional.
Who’s we here? You’re getting downvoted to oblivion because of your hostility. I am merely replying in kind.
It’s not a fair comparison when you trot out good ol photoshop. Can you find an alternative to blender? Yes you can run blender on windows too. It works flawlessly. Linux being non-viable only affects you and that shill.
It’s definitely a case of you barking up the wrong tree.
The entire FOSS community works for very little compensation. You’re not special. Read the fucking room. A lot of people spend their free time building cool shit to share with the community. You’re a prick if you think that you’re in the right calling people in the FOSS community entitled.
You’re a dumbass who can’t read and doesn’t understand foss.
Shouldn’t you at least understand the reason why it is that way? Or are you going to blame Linux when there’s no single entity behind it?
Microsoft struck shady deals with laptop vendors to make them microsoft exclusive. Steve Ballmer effectively said Linux is cancer (probably blaming GPL license). They let people pirate their software so future technologists grew up with windows and other windows software (adobe did the same with photoshop, now it’s industry monopoly)
A community OS like GNU/Linux competes with Microsoft who has billions in the bank. It’s only in the past few years that Linux has seen wider hardware vendor adoption at all.
It’s fine if you think Linux is non-viable… but speak for yourself. Don’t go around trolling people who are perfectly fine with Linux.
Edit: if you don’t care about anything I just wrote then you’re just a horse with blinders on and I am wasting my time.
You’re barking up the wrong tree then. I don’t know why you would do that when you claim to be a pragmatic person. What’s exactly your beef? Care to tell me?
Actually the LGPL legally binds the dev to distributing those versions. So you’re just a troll. I am done replying to you but it has been fun watching you try to justify shit in the name of compensation.
Show us where the dev said exactly that.
You’re asking me to show me where the dishonest person admitted to being dishonest.
Apparently you want me to point out where I took the developer’s words but intentions are not words. You’re deliberately trying to argue that I am accusing the dev of things they did not do, but that’s not true. I am only arguing on their actions and assigning motive to their actions which I make clear in all my comments.
You’re the one who is calling people entitled for expecting LGPL code to be FOSS. I am merely replying to your comments.
The history change was probably to avoid violating the LGPL. If any contributors don’t agree with the change (or you don’t want to do the onerous task of getting consensus as required) you should remove their contributions from the work you make closed source as the contributions still come under LGPL until the original author consents to the change.
Or at least that’s what people said here.
Right, people usually carry a banner stating their intentions clearly and unambiguously.
not enough people donated
Sounds like entitlement to me
Only to a certain extent.
The problem is that a lot of software is very complex and requires full-time development/maintenance. It’s simply not possible to work on stuff for free unless this is just a hobby and you can sustain yourself with a main job.
The main thing I have a problem with this instance is the following sequence of events
This tells me:
Hey, A lot of people spent their precious free time to look at your project, test it out, and talking about it to their colleagues. How are you going to pay us for wasting however many minutes or hours of time spent on your supposedly open source project before you did the bait-and-switch?
(By “you” I meant the developer.)
Donations can give you hobby money. Not “multi-millionaire, going to retire” money. If people who start FOSS projects don’t want to admit that, then they are just looking for free popularity/shortcut to success. They can stop abusing the FLOSS community just so they can make a quick buck.
It’s quite entitled and dishonest to expect free beta-testing, marketing, and clout from the use of FOSS as a shortcut for your product.
If you are sincere then you should know what you are getting into when you create that license.txt with LGPL terms on it.
Read my comment and enlighten all of us on how stealing free testing work from the community under the pretense of “open source” is not entitlement? How is this project going to compensate users for beta testing their software for free?
The amount of people who feel like they’re entitled to the previous code and are calling the license change scummy make me sick.
But you’re not sick at the fact that they licensed it as LGPL just to get their product popular and then said “I got the eyeballs I wanted, time to milk this!”
This developer put their own free time into this project
When your code is open source the expectation is that you are sharing code with people for free so that the community can enjoy the work and hopefully you gain respect and popularity as your product matures and a lot of people utilize it. People might even fund you for your hard work if you become popular enough. Maybe a whole new product gets developed on top of your product and you become important. That’s how a lot of successful open source projects work.
If you are entitled to quick success, we are entitled to our ideology around FLOSS.
they made sure to not accept anyone else’s code.
So they just wanted people to test their product and market them for free? Who’s entitled here?
(Also that argument is not going to work in court when people sue them for violating LGPL terms)
and they understandably felt they deserve to be paid for their time
What about the compensation for people who beta-tested this product for free and recommended them to others?
But otherwise, you should really reflect on how you’re giving back to the people who make the tools you feel oh so entitled to.
The giving back part is increasing respect, popularity, and a community of contributors who will grow YOUR product for free. Don’t act like this small project is a gift from God.
Also, the author literally didn’t accept contributions. That just means they were looking for free marketing and eyeballs. As soon as it was convenient for them to pull the rug they did so without even thinking about the community. Who’s the scumbag, you tell me?
Being good has nothing to do with having to maintain your company’s code base that’s in Oracle’s Java SE 1.6.
You can’t just design your way out of a conflict whose solution is to change either the existing system architecture or change Java versions,
both suggestions will get you laughed out of the room.