that's laughable. How much do you suppose it would cost to hire an international lawyer to pursue a case in a foreign country. Even if there were enough resources, do you think that the stakeholders in the Zig Foundation would consider that to be a reasonable use of the funds that they've donated?
I certainly wouldn't. As a donor, as far as I can tell, this is as good as they could do. I'm much happier that they spend their money on code, and leave it at a statement that can grab attention, like what they have done.
good lord. our budget is public; you can see we have some 30K in the bank, with $3500 income per month. We will not be wasting donors' money on a lawyer.
In this specific case it may not be worth it but if a large corporation were redistributing a hypothetically GPL-licensed version of zig without releasing source, then you would be doing your donors a disservice by not seeking retribution to the foundation.
The point of the blogpost isn't to shutdown Zen, it's to ensure new people who find Zig or Zen aren't confused into thinking there is a relationship between the two.
I have more faith in my fellow human beings that when they do due diligence to decide whether they should pay a monthly fee to use a language, that they would do a little due diligence and look into the history and syntax of the language and see that it's a fork of Zig instead of taking marketing at face value.
By that logic, If you have faith in the due diligence of your fellow man, why would a rational person assume there is a relationship between software forks with no claim to that effect?
>why would a rational person assume there is a relationship between software forks
Because many open source foundations bless commercial offerings. Having the open source foundation come out and say the commercial package is rubbish is the exception, not the norm.
