Not condoning it, but all I can think is how terrible Facebook is for "coordinating" stuff like this. I mean, if FB or the feds wanted to find out who these people are, track them down or something, they can do that pretty easily. People who do stuff like this aren't too bright, though. So not surprised, I guess.
These were great in their day, but it’s time to move on to something better and safer.
How is it "safer" when contributing to the codebase or filing and discussing issues will now require creating an account and giving up personal information to one of the most privacy-invasive tech companies in the world? 😳
The statement says How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?. You can definitely steal it if "you" aren't the customer. And you can steal it from a "customer" even if the customer doesn't own it and someone else does. And you can steal if even if you are the customer, because you aren't the owner. The only time you can't steal it is if you are the owner, because you own it.
The definition of "steal" you mention seems to be proving the point I'm making. Something can be stolen if the person stealing it isn't the owner, which is the case in the first three examples I mentioned above.
The statement is an odd play on words and loaded with assumptions that are left up to the reader, which is why it's super weird to use it to try to prove the point the author was trying to make.
if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing. How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?
By stealing it? You dont have to own something to steal it. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong. Lol it's a very interesting take but I like the spirit of it... And it made me laugh. Cool 😎
Just depends on what works best for each of us. But personally, I agree with you. It's not that I think one company owning a ton of the services is a bad thing in itself. But history has shown us that, when a company starts to dominate a certain market, they tend to start becoming tone-deaf to our interests, because they know we can't (easily) switch and go somewhere else.
How would it work if the open source maintainer is a commercial company?
AFAIK there are no restrictions on when an Open source maintainer can change their license. They can do it even after their work has already been used.
So couldn't a company like, Facebook (since they own open source React) just change their React license to this one and all of sudden start charging everyone for it? 🤔
Exactly what I was wondering the entire time I was listening. None of these questions were asked during the episode. A lot of handwaving and buzzword double-speak. She didn't go into any real technical detail.
mark @ mark @programming.dev Posts 5Comments 191Joined 2 yr. ago
Not condoning it, but all I can think is how terrible Facebook is for "coordinating" stuff like this. I mean, if FB or the feds wanted to find out who these people are, track them down or something, they can do that pretty easily. People who do stuff like this aren't too bright, though. So not surprised, I guess.