It's a good point. Imagine if one of those open source projects that Elastic uses licensed there own little bit of code under the SSL. Elastic would flip out.
Isolation exercises have their place. Lots of folks have muscle imbalances due to occupational injuries and trauma and isolation exercises are a way to correct those imbalances. Obviously see a physical therapist before going ham and making it worse ;).
It also helps to do isolation exercises to strengthen weaker spots in the body that would be the main muscle in a compound movement. I.E. doing leg curls after squats to get a higher volume on those muscles and increase growth.
Yeah, this! I would also like to make a list and pick exercises that I like and then it suggests more more exercises that can fill the gaps of what I still need.
Of course compound lifts are king for most people but there are all sorts of cases for doing isolation exercises. Rehab, strengthening deficiencies, bodybuilding etc.. are all valid use cases for isolation.
I think this is the right way to look at things, after all, these were the orignal "why" arguments in favour of open source.
If we can get the same benefits while also protecting open products from megacorps like AWS, that's a better licence than a true open source licence
> If we can get the same benefits while also protecting open products from megacorps like AWS, that's a better licence than a true open source licence
That's your opinion, of course. IMO, there's a type of magic that happens when software is under a truly non-restrictive license. You get a level of quality and reliability in the software that is unmatched by what you get with any proprietary equivalent.
Unfortunately, most people don't really believe in FOSS. And that's okay. But boy am I getting frustrated with these companies that are happy to preach about how "open source" is amazing, until someone else is making some profit with their software and then suddenly the (extremely vague) restrictive licenses start rolling out.
Both the Debian Free Software Guidelines[1] and the GNU Free Software Definition proscribe limiting fields of endeavor. The OSD[3] borrows heavily from the DFSG.
I remember reading (alas, I can't find my source) a spokesperson for the OSI admitting to the existence of licenses that meet the OSD that they don't want to be OSI-approved because they don't add enough value versus the cost of proliferation of licenses that are substantially similar.
These definitions were written a long ago, in a time when cloud computing wasn't even a buzzword yet.
But I read them and couldn't find anything addressing fields of endeavor. GNU's "four essential freedoms", which imho are a little naive in retrospect, don't say anything about this. They say anyone should be able to "sell copies", but SSPL doesn't disallow this either.
Debian obviously didn't address it either. They clarify: " They can even try to sell it. In practice, it costs essentially no money to make electronic copies of software. Supply and demand will keep the cost down."
I.e. they only allowed it because they thought the free market will take care of it, and didn't imagine how cloud provides will become monopolies of access.
"As a result, you can buy a Debian release on several CDs for just a few USD." - Lol.. that's like trying to apply lessons from the bible to modern life.
Just to broaden the discussion, "fields of endeavor" doesn't just mean cloud services, but also whether you can prevent your software from being used in weapons, or other such morally objectionable applications.
