What he did was no where near acceptable. Instead of adding an infinite loop to purposely sabotage other projects, he should have either walked away or changed the license for future versions of faker into a much more restricted one. SugarCRM transitioned their software from open source to closed source, and they’re still here with paying customers. There are also many restrictive licenses that change depending on the type of user eg free for personal use but paid for medium to large corporations

> he should have either walked away or changed the license for future versions of faker

He could have, and nobody would be talking about or remarking on it at all, which rather defeats the point.

Actually, when redis changed their license to get paid by cloud services like Amazon, there was a huge uproar. The people behind redis didn’t purposely break anything, had a lot of people talking about it, and had a clearer way towards getting paid. There are better ways to bring attention to an important issue.

> What he did was no where near acceptable.

It was a rebellious act against (what seems like) overbearing organizations, comparable to spraying a graffiti on their walls. As I said, there was no serious damage and nobody was hurt; it's not like he burned down buildings or shot at people. I'm of the opinion that this was not the right way as well, but in the end it really wasn't that bad.

Changing the license would be just as “rebellious” and it wouldn’t have hurt anyone. It also would have drastically increased his chances of getting paid. Given his bomb making activities, I feel that this was more of an excuse to watch the world burn.

You don't get to tell other people what they should do for you.

But you do get to criticize poor judgement and provide reasonable alternative courses of action.

Nice bait-and-switch, but we can scroll back and see how relevant your defense of the comment I responded to really is.

Declamations are fine; declarations about what is "acceptable" and what "they should have done" are more than mere criticism of poor judgement, etc., and are what the author of the comment I responded to actually wrote.

> Instead of adding an infinite loop to purposely sabotage other projects, he should have either walked away or changed the license for future versions of faker into a much more restricted one

Then from the context, you can clearly read the comment you responded to did not mention that Makar needed to do anything for him specifically.

> he should have either [done this thing (that I deem would be "acceptable") or this other thing]

(This is my last response to you, since you were strawmanning from the beginning and this is obviously not going to go anywhere that doesn't involve intellectual dishonesty dressed up as a clever retort.)

Or ad hominem attacks.