MikeeUSA -- Notice Bruce Perens has NO response (nor does Moglen). [Was: Re: GrSecurity]

[Xen]

esodnencaocrefsdv at aaathats3as.com schreef op 03-08-2017 10:41:
> Half of the largest responded to articles on Slashdot are on licensing
> issues and copyright regarding opensource.
> 
> This is a very pressing issue for those who use and those who
> contribute to free software.

A much more pressing issue is the fact that companies like Red Hat, who 
work... I guess, for the US Military among other things (as contractors, 
these are their clients) and others like them (other companies) pay for 
most of the development in Linux.

90% of development on the Linux Kernel for instance is sponsored.

Not sponsored to independents, these are employees.

Red Hat is the sole developer of SystemD (or systemd) and e.g. LVM.

It is pretty clear that those who can make a living doing what they do, 
and who get paid for development, will be much more capable of 
outputting the work and doing the time for it and thus producing much 
more output and thus having a much larger impact on direction in a world 
where "Those who do the work, decide the direction", than those who 
would do it in their free time.

Thus, development in Linux and its direction is decided by corporations.

But I don't hear you about that.

Instead you worry about a copyright claim against a company whose 
product none of us uses.

Red Hat doesn't sell their software so that is not their business model. 
This guy does.

What you are trying to do is kill this business model. This happens to 
be also a business model that adds "value" to the product.

Ie. if you create an open source product without any polish you cannot 
sell it, but neither will anyone steal your work.

No one could ever make money "selling" Red Hat Linux or whatever.

So although in some sense, arguably, noble, that you are defending the 
common man against abuse... the only thing you are doing is disrupting 
an attempt at making money on the _sale_ of a product rather than on 
support.

Red Hat creating a shabby systemd does effect me. This guy making a good 
product he can sell based on possibly my own work, or rather still, 
rather less, more appropriately, an army of kernel developers, making a 
derivative based on it (adding to it) and being allowed to do it does 
not effect me at all, as far as I can see it.

In Game Genie vs. Nintendo a company created a cheating device that 
would alter the operation of an existing product.

They won that case and were allowed to do it.

Distributing patches to be applied to an existing software product would 
really be no different than that. If Nintendo were to say "You can buy 
our product only if you agree never to modify it" I don't think that 
would make it any different.

You want me (or anyone) to go after this guy and for what?

How does that improve MY life?