Okay, so just to be clear: the article did not actually say what you claimed it said, but rather you are conjecturing the basis of the FSF’s decision not to assist this person based on quotes describing this person’s own inferences from a conversation they had with the FSF rather than based on anything the FSF has actually said.
You may be right about this, but it is still conjecture.
I am unable to find that in this article. Could you quote the paragraph you are referring to?
I was a nerd, so I tried really really hard to prove logically that my religion was the correct one… and failed.
Ah, but you see, JavaScript is not so straightforward. It tries to help you by automatically inserting missing semicolons, but the approach that it uses is that it will insert them in the first place where doing so would make the code parse. This, unfortunately, means that semicolons are often inserted in places where you were not expecting them, so the advice is to always include them manually yourself so that you are never unpleasantly surprised.
Nice try, but this post is actually now talking about JavaScript, which means that the close parentheses areautomatically inserted.
Yeah, I had been willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt that this was all part of a big joke, until I saw that the rest of their blog postings are also just like this one.
What happens if you use an out of range array subscript a[n]? Does that always return an option type?
I think that you would be surprised by the amount you would learn if you spent five minutes actually trying to answer your own questions, instead of treating them as proof that you just made a relevant point merely by asking them.
I am really confused by what is going on here. Was Neo4j the original author of the code? Because if so, then they can license their own code however they like. The potential sticking point would be if they represented the license as being AGPL3 when it is not because this would be fundamentally misleading, and it sounds like the court agrees that this is a valid concern because it awarded a partial summary judgement that, “The court did affirm that a license created by combining the AGPL with other non-open-source terms cannot be called ‘free and open source.’”
It is noteworthy that apparently the Free Software Foundation did not think that this legal case was worth intervening in.
My humanity.
More like a scratch you just can’t itch.
My services are so small that it is impossible to know just how fast they are running!
Poe’s law strikes again!
Speak for yourself! I am only an apprentice manipulator.
Nah, i rather be with an honest piece of shit than someone how “pretends” to be a good person.
On the other hand, someone who “pretends” to be a good person all of the time is essentially indistinguishable from an actual good person.
That is what makes it Enterprise-grade!
To add nuance to my comment: I think that Linus mismanaged the conflict, and that this was a significant and avoidable factor in Marcan getting burned out. For an example of how Linus could have approached this instead: he could have publicly criticized both Marcan and Hellwig at the same time, rather than first publicly criticizing Marcan and then only after Marcan left publicly criticizing Hellwig for his own behavior. This probably would have made Marcan feel less picked on and less likely to have been burnt out. (Or maybe not; I do not claim to deal in certainties.)
Man, imagine if he had just come out and said this earlier before burning out a kernel contributor…
Historical revisionism at work:
The astroid shot first.
Wow, it is impressive the lengths people are willing to go to vandalize Musk’s property as a form of political protest!