I was responding to the following paragraph in the article:
We used to get proof-of-thought for free because producing a patch took real effort. Now that writing code is cheap, verification becomes the real proof-of-work. I mean proof of work in the original sense: effort that leaves a trail: careful reviews, assumption checks, simulations, stress tests, design notes, postmortems. That trail is hard to fake. [emphasis mine] In a world where AI says anything with confidence and the tone never changes, skepticism becomes the scarce resource.
I am a bit wary that the trail of verification will continue to be so "hard to fake".
Yeah, the transition from the third frame to the fourth frame just doesn't make sense as currently depicted; why would people playing video games suddenly start to revolt?
However, if the third frame were to depict rich men getting richer as you suggest, then the revolt in the fourth frame would make more sense.
I would rather be a moron than someone who calls for others to be tarred and feathered over their choice of an open source software license of all things.
So now you are going to start tarring and feathering anyone who decides to start a project using the MIT license, or at least engage in an equivalent level of verbal violence at every possible opportunity?
Reread that quote, and you will see that I was saying that just because they are required to distribute the source code with binaries--which they are only required to do if they distribute binaries--does not mean that they have to take any steps to contribute the changes they've made to the upstream project.
Okay, but is this group trying to re-write all of the GPL software in the Linux ecosystem with an MIT license? I ask this because I think that the words "first step" are doing a lot of the lifting in your argument.
And just to be clear, my objection is not to people disagreeing with the license; in fact, as I have said elsewhere--though I hardly expect you to have read all of my comments here!--I think that the underlying criticism is actually reasonable, I just also think that the extent of the concern is exaggerated in practice in this specific case (which is why I keep trying to pin people down on specifics rather than generalities). Again, my objection is that people feel the need to post the same inane comments with varying degree of toxicity (such referring to them as using a "cuck" license) complaining about it in every single post.
I have not been given a specific example of a scenario involving uutils, I have only been told about scenarios for unrelated and very different projects, and the difference between the situations is significant enough that you can't simply point to them and declare that your point has automatically been proven. In fact, I would argue that uutils is such a different case that it is implausible that such a scenario could occur and become a big problem.
And yes, people stopping complaining about work being done on a project they are not involved with in every single post discussing it would be a perfectly fine outcome for me. But if they are not going to do that, then I would also be happy with getting my questions answered because I believe that they are relevant.
It is not just that these complaints are noise, but that they contribute to a general environment of toxicity by complaining about other people working on a project they are passionate about, which is something I abhor. To the extent that I am coming across as being toxic myself (which is not an unreasonable viewpoint in many, but not all, cases), I consider that to be me holding up a mirror of the comment I am responding to.
I concur. Not paying attention to my phone when I have better things to be paying attention to is not that hard for me at all, but maybe I just am weird for not being addicted to social media and/or constant external stimulation?
Fair enough, but in that case, them using a less optimal license is a problem that will solve itself because it won't be used, so it is not something that needs to be brought up by multiple people in every post on uutils.
First GNU coreutils is going to remain GPL-licensed, so nothing that already exists is being given away; the only thing that is happening is that some people have decided to write brand new code. (And it is worth noting that GPL only says that if you share the binaries, you have to share the source code; if your changes are only used internally, you do not have to contribute them back, though you probably want to do so since it makes your life easier down the road when you want to use newer version of upstream.)
Second, what scenario exactly is it that you are worried about? I want a specific and plausible answer, not just vague allusions.
Finally, if the Rust authors are fine with the possibility that someone will use their code in this way, then who are we to tell them to stop their development when we can continue to use GNU coreutils?
You did not answer my question, and I think it is an important one so I will repeat it: should they abandon the project if they are unwilling to use your preferred license?
Fair enough. I do actually get the concern, though I think that the threat is being exaggerated. However, I would argue that, if the goal is not to try and get these developers to abandon their efforts, then it does not make sense for every single discussion to get flooded with the same complaints about the license to the point that not much else seems to get talked about.
Businesses can already create their own forks of GPL-licensed software and not contribute their changes to the upstream project; in fact, they do not even have to share their code with anyone at all if they use it internally do not distribute binaries. However, they are incentivized to share their changes, even if they do not have to, because if they do not then merging upstream changes will become increasingly difficult.
I agree that being concerned is reasonable. The reason for my fervor is that I find it unreasonable for every single discussion of uutils to be flooded with complaints about the license--that are often very toxic, e.g. reference to uutils using a "cuck license" as one commenter did above--to the point that there are few discussions of anything else.
I was responding to the following paragraph in the article:
I am a bit wary that the trail of verification will continue to be so "hard to fake".