Good point
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Most servers runs GNU+Linux (open source), IoT devices use GNU+Linux and so on. A lot of commercial use is hybrid projects were 95% of the code is open source, then the devs added 5% proprietary code on top of it.
This here is the real issue, if you build on top of an open source project, any changes you do should be required to be open source too. In case of phones, desktop PC's, consoles and IoT devices, the software isn't the biggest issue, there's a lot of work on the hardware too, distribution, manufacturing, special use cases and so on.
As long as we ban Chyna (and similar countries) companies should have no issues competing on a fair and open market even were intellectual property doesn't exist.
It's not harder than banning all products that doesn't comply with your country's laws. I.e if local companies can't use slave labor, then we shouldn't allow Chyna to export stuff made by slave labor and sell on our markets, simple as that. Same rules for everyone.
Proprietary companies like crapple loves the MIT loicense, which allows them to use an open source project as is, commercially, and then change it without being forced to release those changes.
Basically a stolen open source foundation with proprietary code in it. Another example is pajeetsoft who now includes a Linux subsystem in pajeetsoft Windows.
Commercial use isn't an issue in itself, as long as any change also must be open source.
"I did all this amazing work."
"Cool, can we see it?"
"ABSOLUTELY NOT!"
"OK! You're hired!"
Now it's like software, released unfinished, full of bugs, cost 10x more than what a car of similar hardware should cost and it's all connected to the cloud. If you can't reach the cloud or of the manufacturers servers shut down, maybe the manufacturer goes bankrupt, the cars won't even run. Like Fisker for instance, their cars won't run because they can't connect to the cloud, no refunds.
And with all this fuckery going on, CEOs think it's a good idea to hire retarded pajeets. It shows that even brands have (((planned obsolesce))) now with one jew owning hundreds of different brands they can advertise, sell a shitload of shit and then let the brand die off and nobody blames the jew behind it, only the brand itself that's just an entity.
GPL3 was to force SaaS providers to open source server side software. It was too onerous and that's why Linus rejected it for the Linux Kernel.
Apple is the golden child for making open source the basis of your empire. MacOS is based on the FreeBSD kernel.
But let's not forget Android, it is a Linux kernel with proprietry stuff on top.
Playstation does this for instance, and this is were it gets more infuriating as games compiled for PS could easily be ported to Linux natively, yet all we get is steam and proton as many games force people to run pajeetsoft Windows.
Proprietary software makers are actively helping each others out, just like kikes to make sure a lot of software won't be available on open source platforms.
The MIT license crystallized with X11 release in 1987 but the modern text was approved by the OSI in 1999.
BILL GATES
Up until then, software was written and shared freely. The idea of making money off of code was ridiculous. People wanted to sell computers and solutions, not code. Customers wanted stuff that just did what you told it to do, not code.
Today there are still people trying to figure a way to circumvent the GPL and other open-source licenses. It's utterly ridiculous. Software is literally super easy to make and distribute, almost zero cost. Nothing in the world is like it, and yet it is so expensive, why?
Software engineers are just glorified mechanics after all. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how stuff works or how to fix it when it doesn't work anymore.
The biggest examples do not involve Microsoft at all. The only case I know of was the MS vs Sun JavaScript / JScript but MS were the ones accused, as they have been in ever case I could find.
The significant code IP cases were:
AT&T claimed patent #4,555,775, issued to Rob Pike in 1985, covered the "backing store" functionality in MIT's X Window System and issued Cease & Desist letters to MIT.
MIT defended their position and eventually AT&T withdrew their claim.
UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc. was the lawsuit brought in New Jersey federal court in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories against Berkeley Software Design, Inc and the Regents of the University of California.
This was the most famous computer code copyright lawsuit until the Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), which was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law.