The irony is having to use one kind of licensed tool on another diametrically opposed type of licensed tool.
Its not how the tool is used (as you described), but the licensing of the tool, versus the licensing of the tool its being used on.
That seems self-evident, considering I went out of my way to express the licensing in my original comment. But, if you have a better word for me to use than ironic, please let me know.
How is that ironic? It seems like exactly what I would expect: open source software prioritizing human wellbeing instead of corporate profits.
The irony is having to use one kind of licensed tool on another diametrically opposed type of licensed tool.
Its not how the tool is used (as you described), but the licensing of the tool, versus the licensing of the tool its being used on.
That seems self-evident, considering I went out of my way to express the licensing in my original comment. But, if you have a better word for me to use than ironic, please let me know.
deleted by creator
You honestly see no irony, license-wise, in using an open source product to repair/modify a closed source product?
At all?
No one is disputing that. That’s not the point being made.
deleted by creator
Again, it’s not how the tool is used, or what the tools used on, it’s the licensing difference, that is the irony.
That closed source products have to rely on open source products, to be modified to work well.