They never said that they had to use c because go is not a systems language, so your assertion looks wrong. They wanted to avoid using unsafe.
In c everything is unsafe by the way, so it makes it less of a systems language?
> GPLv2 and v3 gave hobbyists, students, and anti-corporate hackers a means to feel as though their work resists the evil empire of the software industry, while in fact serving it up with unpaid work product.
I got linux and the GNU userland for free. I used it to learn and it got me a job.
Of course I contribute to GPL projects.
It's not unpaid work, it's paid in code.
It's funny that he chose mongodb as an example. They require a contributor to sign the CLA and give all ownership of the code to mongodb. This is effectively unpaid work, more than the GPL.
These new unfree licenses are the most restrictive the VC friendly lawyers can think of to maintain an usurped "open source" moniker while trying to push clients to buy commercial licenses.
To stay in France, it's a bit as if you said the cathedrals construction was a total failure basing your judgment on the Beauvais cathedral which also suffered of the second system effect.
What percentage of the waste is radiating for 10000 years? And how radioactive is it?
Without facts, precise facts to back it up your statement looks irrational indeed.
It's the first of its generation and is quite a failure on many aspects.
It's not representative of all the nuclear reactors in France, far from it.
Thus it is
quite insignificant.
Sure, but those are only weasel words and blatant lies. Talking about "Commercializing Open-Source", when you are in fact closing your source code is dishonest. And I think HN needs honesty. Even with some bluntness.
Oracle has been free riding red hat with unbreakable Linux, for years.
Then red hat got bought for 30 billions.
When you are confident about you ability to outsmart the competition and keep your customers, you don't have to use those new semi-open licenses. They are a legal risk for anyone who copies or reuses the code.
> You can still run the software, for free, in your business. You can still change the software, for free, and run that in your business. You can still fork the software, from today, and do what you want with it.
You cannot reuse and publish. Matter of fact, even reading it and taking inspiration from it is risky. Words from an IP lawyer I know.
It's a proprietary license. There is no shame in that. So don't try to act like you are still an open source company.
One has to make a good living. That's not what I was criticizing.
> It's hostile to entities that may want to take others open source work and provide a business around that work.
Consider yourself happy Torvalds didn't think this way. Or Guido. What's your dev environment?
Also, please make it clear that this is a proprietary license aimed at making VCs happy and keep the cash flowing, while being hostile to the tinkerer who wants to learn and reuse parts of your code.
However when deploying server binaries it's a substancial advantage. End users like them. Ops like them.