Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

suflaj t1_iz0nxhx wrote

Why should they be free?

1

[deleted] OP t1_iz0q3ok wrote

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

−9

robot_lives_matter t1_iz19jic wrote

oh my god what a load of bollocks. i work 11 hours a day so that you can take all my stuff for free? I mean how entitled to expect others to give you their hardwork for free. this link made the dumbest arguments ever.

5

suflaj t1_iz0sfqt wrote

Ah, so the appeal to communism.

You are always free to create your own free version of what this software provides if you feel like financial compensation for the use of it is unfair.

−14

Gustephan t1_iz0tl0i wrote

What an L take. Comparing open source software to communism is openly admitting that you don't understand either of those concepts

13

suflaj t1_iz0vqid wrote

Except I am not comparing anything to communism, but summarizing Stallman's manifesto as an appeal to communism, which it is.

I asked why someone would consider it necessary for such software to be free because I thought the argument would be about some functionality that already exists as free software or something that was taken from free software.

Yet OP just copy pasted an argument that is incompatible outside of an utopic setting, from a person that no longer has a place in modern society due to his wrongdoings.

−6

Cizox t1_iz11jvz wrote

Communism is when free stuff

0

suflaj t1_iz12fzk wrote

Not at all, do not strawman. It is Stallman himself who notes that the free in software refers to freedom, not cost in the first place.

−1

Any_Geologist9302 t1_iz1crhj wrote

You might want to refresh your memory if you think that’s an appeal to communism.

0

suflaj t1_iz1d2by wrote

Hey, the appeal to relinquish company ownership and embrace public ownership needs no memory refreshing to be categorized as communism.

2

[deleted] OP t1_iz0sxof wrote

I think along the lines that software platforms should be FOSS, hardware resources should cost, and apps (userland) can be anything. But I don't buy into the idea of vendor lock-in on hardware that can essentially run anything.

−3

suflaj t1_iz0w24l wrote

Well, that is your opinion, as I said, you are free to develop and offer such software to people, as many, ex. Apache, do.

I was under the impression that your assertion had something to do with the platforms itself, not politics.

3

[deleted] OP t1_iz0wzgn wrote

Well yes in the sense that DataBricks is from creators of Spark so one may perceive that it's just "enterprise Spark", where the product is essentially quite same, but it's just sold as a service.

1

suflaj t1_iz11s02 wrote

Azure Databricks is Apache Spark-based, but it is made by Microsoft, which is obviously not Apache. Furthermore, Apache Spark does not compare to Databricks, nor is it published under a copyleft license, so this again seems like product and ideology incompatibility rather than an objective reason.

2