What did he mean by this?

the fuck are you on about there's no bulge

Only the winners get to rewrite history bub.

You're just totally ignorant of what happened, rajeesh.

I'm gonna go with moonspeak too, it's indecipherable.

I speak Italian, I'll try to interpret his Engrish.

What he's trying to convey is that putting an open source license on your software doesn't make it open source if the only contributor is your company or whatever, unless people unrelated to the copyright owner of the project have the tools and knowledge to contribute to it, it's not open source.

Open source misses the point.

It depends on what you think the point is, viral licenses are bad for some kinds of project.

The point of free software. There is much more to it than just open source code.

Like what? As far as programmers are concerned, not normal users who I do not care about.

Freedom to modify and redistribute.

>the fuck are you on about there's no bulge

There is now

Attached: 885737b89c48f8fedacb2935061bc429_1.gif (800x450, 1.31M)

sds and linenoise are some of the standards I set my C code to

That's already covered by all the licenses that are considered "open source", mention one that does not allow that.

Firstly, it doesn't matter. just say free software if you want to refer to the four freedoms. Secondly, Microsoft has open source licenses that do not permit the four freedoms of free software.

>respectable c programmer
>his code has undefined behavior
>ignores pull requests to fix it

You're just regurgitating garbage that you read on the internet.

Which licenses and which freedoms do those licenses infringe?

(the only freedom you need is 1 by the way, every other one is for non-programmers who nobody should care about)

>(the only freedom you need is 1 by the way, every other one is for non-programmers who nobody should care about)
Only retards think this. Get off my board, winjeet.

commie shit on twitter. very new

With freedom one you can do everything else, the redistribution part is about binaries, not source code.

Every other freedom, in short, is for retards who can't build their own shit from source and cannot make their own changes, they're dead weight.

Also I haven't used Windows since Windows 98 and I'm not of Hindi ethnicity.

>the redistribution part is about binaries, not source code.
Wrong.

yeah, the shitty quality and a community that's more concerned with people's pronouns than quality control

Which open source licenses prevent you from redistributing modified source code?

All of them. Only free software licenses allow it.

>Every other freedom, in short, is for retards who can't build their own shit from source and cannot make their own changes, they're dead weight.
so the majority of GNUtards kek

That is false. The most commonly used open source licenses (MIT, *BSD, Apache) allow that.

So please, list which open source licenses in common use prevent you from redistributing modified source code.

Yes, exactly my point.

Those are free software licenses, since they allow for the four freedoms, not just open source code.

You do realize that by "open source" people mean "not *GPL garbage", right?

It's not the 90s anymore.

No, you're wrong. They may describe themselves as such, but pretending something is true doesn't make it so.

It's true with any programmer (who actually makes software) I've talked to, maybe you've just been hanging out with users.

>anecdotal evidence
*yawn*

Seek help

>random Twitter faggot

he is buthurt that cloud providers made custom versions of Redis that they provide as a service without upstreaming patches nor providing any financial support to him.

so does that mean if I write shitty code that no one is able to understand or is disgusted by it and I release it under open source license is it not open source?

Copyright infringement strike

Attached: i have an opinion.png (784x349, 65K)

according to that poster's interpretation of an engrish twitter bio, yes. But I took it as more of a metaphor like "if nobody but you knows how to use it, is it really open source?"

rather, the invitation for community and contribution, assumedly by way of documentation/cooperation, are what he believes constitutes "open source".

either way, he's being overly idealistic and is probably just salty his shit got stolen by megacorps because he didn't copyleft it hard enough

link?