I've been using neovim for years and have never heard of this, and have never paid them anything. I'm not saying you're incorrect that they've asked ("demanded" feels a bit strong?) for patreon payments or other forms of compensation, but a) that is their prerogative, and b) as a user, I haven't felt pressured into contributing at all.
> Neovim doesn't support vim's development it only takes from it. It never pushes anything back upstream
I suspect at this point they've diverged enough that doing so would be infeasible.
And yes, by definition, a fork "takes" from the original parent project. Neovim is not obligated (legally or morally) to contribute back to vim. That's the -- brilliant -- nature of open source & permissive licensing.
> ... and most importantly, never contributes to Bram's charity, ICCF Holland.
Why is this a requirement? I'd been using vim for at least a decade prior to switching to neovim, and never donated. I think charitable donations are a very personal thing; people can donate to whatever causes they feel like, and pressuring someone to donate to a charity just because it's linked to a piece of software they use (or have forked from) sounds awfully similar in tone to your "demanded patreon payments" rant above.
> Please stop mentioning neovim as if it's a defacto replacement for vim.
I don't think the GP was trying to do that. They merely pointed out that neovim (and emacs) has built-in support for LSP (etc.), which I believe vim does not? So vim isn't really relevant to the point being made.
I think perhaps you should step back a little and ask yourself why this topic seems to be so emotionally charged for you. It's just a text editor; let people use and promote whatever editor they like.
I've been using neovim for years and have never heard of this, and have never paid them anything. I'm not saying you're incorrect that they've asked ("demanded" feels a bit strong?) for patreon payments or other forms of compensation, but a) that is their prerogative, and b) as a user, I haven't felt pressured into contributing at all.
> Neovim doesn't support vim's development it only takes from it. It never pushes anything back upstream
I suspect at this point they've diverged enough that doing so would be infeasible.
And yes, by definition, a fork "takes" from the original parent project. Neovim is not obligated (legally or morally) to contribute back to vim. That's the -- brilliant -- nature of open source & permissive licensing.
> ... and most importantly, never contributes to Bram's charity, ICCF Holland.
Why is this a requirement? I'd been using vim for at least a decade prior to switching to neovim, and never donated. I think charitable donations are a very personal thing; people can donate to whatever causes they feel like, and pressuring someone to donate to a charity just because it's linked to a piece of software they use (or have forked from) sounds awfully similar in tone to your "demanded patreon payments" rant above.
> Please stop mentioning neovim as if it's a defacto replacement for vim.
I don't think the GP was trying to do that. They merely pointed out that neovim (and emacs) has built-in support for LSP (etc.), which I believe vim does not? So vim isn't really relevant to the point being made.
I think perhaps you should step back a little and ask yourself why this topic seems to be so emotionally charged for you. It's just a text editor; let people use and promote whatever editor they like.