Quote from: wolftaur on September 05, 2011, 01:52:21 AM

You used as a point of argument that someone supported doublec's closed source application, and implied that meant their disapproval of the SolidCoin license change was disingenuous. Your exact words: "The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source."

You made a completely invalid "point" and I simply explained why it was invalid.

I really don't mean to be rude but I believe your comprehension of that statement is faulty. In your first post you seemed to interpret my statement as meaning as absolutely that I believe it was wrong for doublec to have his exchange closed, which is not what I said at all. So when you defended the statement that I didn't make by saying

"doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business."

You were in fact arguing a point I never made, which is by definition a strawman argument. I invite you to read this article on the subject if you are interested in the specifics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Now this most recent post seems to argue something completely different, and it still seems to fail to understand my statement. So please let me clarify: Clearly he believes that it possible for closed source software to be functional and successful. To me it reads that he shows no preference long as the software is good. Even though what realsolid is doing is clearly a bad move its not breaking any laws so long as he continues to maintain it I don't understand why someone with that position would care what the licensing of the software is.

Regardless I have no interest in being involved in this discussion unless it is either civil or at the very least results in substantial feedback which I can use to improve the open source project which work on.