Yes. Nobody is saying that there should be no laws and regulations (not even the libertarians). What I am saying is that the current laws enable the rich to create and maintain monopolies and line their pockets at the expense of everyone else.
insist on the nonsensical idea that we can and should fix things from within it and under its rules (and in your example, using one of its most toxic and destructive elements)
I don't think I am saying that at all. Could you point out the specific passages which come across that way?
Why do you believe it's worse to have public ownership?
Do you want the government to run crucial services such as search engines (Google), e-commerce websites (Amazon) and so on?
You imagine an ideal government which has the best intentions, rather than people acting in their self-interest.
Would you like Trump to control these things? What about law enforcement getting all the data with no constraints of getting warrants?
why didn't you respond to the reasoning I laid out for why perpetually trying to move the clock back and stagnate instead of progressing onwards is false thinking?
Government ownership is not progress. It has been tried, and shown to work poorly in many countries repeatedly.
I have mentioned examples of games that saw commercial success while being open source. And of course, delayed open source is also an option as some other users have said here.
I think it could be viable for a company to release a game with a “5 year FOSS promise” or something similar
Yes, that is one of the options I mention in the article. But there are games that are open source from day one, such as Mindustry, which have seen commercial success.
I am an open source guy. Please feel free to use it as you like. 😄
Thank you! I am glad someone appreciates good word play.
I don't think they read it even the first time around.
Thanks. I was working off old data. I have updated it.
Yes. Nobody is saying that there should be no laws and regulations (not even the libertarians). What I am saying is that the current laws enable the rich to create and maintain monopolies and line their pockets at the expense of everyone else.
I don't think I am saying that at all. Could you point out the specific passages which come across that way?
Do you want the government to run crucial services such as search engines (Google), e-commerce websites (Amazon) and so on?
You imagine an ideal government which has the best intentions, rather than people acting in their self-interest.
Would you like Trump to control these things? What about law enforcement getting all the data with no constraints of getting warrants?
Government ownership is not progress. It has been tried, and shown to work poorly in many countries repeatedly.
The only thing worse than a private monopoly is a government monopoly. Especially when that government will soon be under Donald Trump.
Are house designs covered by copyright?
You could always write to him and ask him to specify a licence.
This is great. The more people subscribe to open source, the better it will get for everyone.
You joke, but developers can make profits with open source. The final part of the article deals with this issue.
I have mentioned examples of games that saw commercial success while being open source. And of course, delayed open source is also an option as some other users have said here.
Yes, that is one of the options I mention in the article. But there are games that are open source from day one, such as Mindustry, which have seen commercial success.
I agree, it is better to be open source all the way. I believe Godot became more popular after Unity tried to charge developers per install.
If you think all products should be open source, you might like this other article I wrote about making aircraft open source.