It's going to be quite rare.. and I do like that we have better visual warning to users that something went wrong instead of a wall of colorless text.

Being good has nothing to do with having to maintain your company's code base that's in Oracle's Java SE 1.6.

You can't just design your way out of a conflict whose solution is to change either the existing system architecture or change Java versions,

both suggestions will get you laughed out of the room.

Oh man this takes me way back. VB's pick and drop UI builder was so magical. I used to do complex wizard based forms that are probably terrible if I look at them now (If I still preserved them... unfortunately I didn't) but at the time they looked professional.

Who's we here? You're getting downvoted to oblivion because of your hostility. I am merely replying in kind.

It's not a fair comparison when you trot out good ol photoshop. Can you find an alternative to blender? Yes you can run blender on windows too. It works flawlessly. Linux being non-viable only affects you and that shill.

It's definitely a case of you barking up the wrong tree.

The entire FOSS community works for very little compensation. You're not special. Read the fucking room. A lot of people spend their free time building cool shit to share with the community. You're a prick if you think that you're in the right calling people in the FOSS community entitled.

You're a dumbass who can't read and doesn't understand foss.

Shouldn't you at least understand the reason why it is that way? Or are you going to blame Linux when there's no single entity behind it?

Microsoft struck shady deals with laptop vendors to make them microsoft exclusive. Steve Ballmer effectively said Linux is cancer (probably blaming GPL license). They let people pirate their software so future technologists grew up with windows and other windows software (adobe did the same with photoshop, now it's industry monopoly)

A community OS like GNU/Linux competes with Microsoft who has billions in the bank. It's only in the past few years that Linux has seen wider hardware vendor adoption at all.

It's fine if you think Linux is non-viable... but speak for yourself. Don't go around trolling people who are perfectly fine with Linux.

Edit: if you don't care about anything I just wrote then you're just a horse with blinders on and I am wasting my time.

You're barking up the wrong tree then. I don't know why you would do that when you claim to be a pragmatic person. What's exactly your beef? Care to tell me?

Actually the LGPL legally binds the dev to distributing those versions. So you're just a troll. I am done replying to you but it has been fun watching you try to justify shit in the name of compensation.

Show us where the dev said exactly that.

You're asking me to show me where the dishonest person admitted to being dishonest.

Apparently you want me to point out where I took the developer's words but intentions are not words. You're deliberately trying to argue that I am accusing the dev of things they did not do, but that's not true. I am only arguing on their actions and assigning motive to their actions which I make clear in all my comments.

You're the one who is calling people entitled for expecting LGPL code to be FOSS. I am merely replying to your comments.

The history change was probably to avoid violating the LGPL. If any contributors don't agree with the change (or you don't want to do the onerous task of getting consensus as required) you should remove their contributions from the work you make closed source as the contributions still come under LGPL until the original author consents to the change.

Or at least that's what people said here.

Right, people usually carry a banner stating their intentions clearly and unambiguously.

not enough people donated

Sounds like entitlement to me

Only to a certain extent.

The problem is that a lot of software is very complex and requires full-time development/maintenance. It's simply not possible to work on stuff for free unless this is just a hobby and you can sustain yourself with a main job.

The main thing I have a problem with this instance is the following sequence of events

1. The developer licensed it as LGPL.
2. They did not accept ANY contributions to the code.
3. The project became popular enough for people to post about in the fediverse (quite popular then, I guess)
4. They got donations for their work, but apparently it was not enough.
5. They removed the project from being accessible and moved to a paid only model.

This tells me:

1. Their intention all along was to abuse FOSS community for popularity, traction, clout and free testing by people who are also doing this stuff in their free time.
2. They got donations, but for whatever reason it was not enough for them. => Were they expecting to make retirement level income from their project which is in a crowded segment?

Hey, A lot of people spent their precious free time to look at your project, test it out, and talking about it to their colleagues. How are you going to pay us for wasting however many minutes or hours of time spent on your supposedly open source project before you did the bait-and-switch?

(By "you" I meant the developer.)

Donations can give you hobby money. Not "multi-millionaire, going to retire" money. If people who start FOSS projects don't want to admit that, then they are just looking for free popularity/shortcut to success. They can stop abusing the FLOSS community just so they can make a quick buck.

It's quite entitled and dishonest to expect free beta-testing, marketing, and clout from the use of FOSS as a shortcut for your product.

If you are sincere then you should know what you are getting into when you create that license.txt with LGPL terms on it.

Read my comment and enlighten all of us on how stealing free testing work from the community under the pretense of "open source" is not entitlement? How is this project going to compensate users for beta testing their software for free?