Am 26.06.22 um 21:05 schrieb Gronk:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
>> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>
> They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
> Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get with
> the program.

Bullshit. You have obviously no clue about the standards in a
legislative process.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 26.06.22 um 21:05 schrieb Gronk:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
>> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>
> They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
> Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get with
> the program.

Bullshit. You have obviously no clue about the standards in a
legislative process.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 26.06.22 um 21:05 schrieb Gronk:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> it has nothing to do with apple and your attempt to twist it into
>> something it's not shows just how untenable your position is.
>
> They're careful not to call out Apple in the EU legislation & US
> Congressional letter but it's mostly about asking Apple nicely to get with
> the program.

Bullshit. You have obviously no clue about the standards in a
legislative process.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9ab25$7lh$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>
>> LOL. macOS and iOS, I think, are based on an open source OS and many other
>> open source utilities. Safari's webkit is also open source.
>
> some parts are open source, but not all of it.

I never said otherwise.

> a substantial portion of macos, ios, windows and even android are
> *closed* source.

Well done for stating the obvious.

> in fact, android phones must be approved by google to use the full
> android (and almost nobody would buy an android phone without that).
>
>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>
> rubbish.
>
> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.

Under the current model. The model would change.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9ab25$7lh$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>
>> LOL. macOS and iOS, I think, are based on an open source OS and many other
>> open source utilities. Safari's webkit is also open source.
>
> some parts are open source, but not all of it.

I never said otherwise.

> a substantial portion of macos, ios, windows and even android are
> *closed* source.

Well done for stating the obvious.

> in fact, android phones must be approved by google to use the full
> android (and almost nobody would buy an android phone without that).
>
>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>
> rubbish.
>
> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.

Under the current model. The model would change.

The academic arena is perfectly capable of innovation with an open model.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9ab82$8et$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>>>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
>>> eliminated.
>>
>> Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.
>
> good point. red hat and canonical are as big as apple, microsoft and
> google, with a massive user base, and a plethora of features not found
> in any other product.
>
> oh wait...

Apple et al are obscenely big and horde massive amount of cash from the
economy. That's not good for society or the economy. Trillion dollar
companies are immoral.

The point is business can exist in an open-source model. It will neither be
"eliminated" or "destroyed". Stop with the hyperbole which is clearly
bollocks.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9ab25$7lh$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>
>> LOL. macOS and iOS, I think, are based on an open source OS and many other
>> open source utilities. Safari's webkit is also open source.
>
> some parts are open source, but not all of it.

I never said otherwise.

> a substantial portion of macos, ios, windows and even android are
> *closed* source.

Well done for stating the obvious.

> in fact, android phones must be approved by google to use the full
> android (and almost nobody would buy an android phone without that).
>
>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>
> rubbish.
>
> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.

Under the current model. The model would change.

The academic arena is perfectly capable of innovation with an open model.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9ab82$8et$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>>>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
>>> eliminated.
>>
>> Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.
>
> good point. red hat and canonical are as big as apple, microsoft and
> google, with a massive user base, and a plethora of features not found
> in any other product.
>
> oh wait...

Apple et al are obscenely big and horde massive amount of cash from the
economy. That's not good for society or the economy. Trillion dollar
companies are immoral.

The point is business can exist in an open-source model. It will neither be
"eliminated" or "destroyed". Stop with the hyperbole which is clearly
bollocks.

In article <t9bke6$b08h$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
> >> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
> >
> > rubbish.
> >
> > it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
> > no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
> > and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
> > the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.
>
> Under the current model. The model would change.

for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
it.

In article <t9blj7$b95r$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> >>>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
> >>>>
> >>>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
> >>>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
> >>> eliminated.
> >>
> >> Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.
> >
> > good point. red hat and canonical are as big as apple, microsoft and
> > google, with a massive user base, and a plethora of features not found
> > in any other product.
> >
> > oh wait...
>
> Apple et al are obscenely big and horde massive amount of cash from the
> economy. That's not good for society or the economy. Trillion dollar
> companies are immoral.

rubbish.

> The point is business can exist in an open-source model. It will neither be
> "eliminated" or "destroyed". Stop with the hyperbole which is clearly
> bollocks.

very few companies can exist under such a model because there is no
longer any motivation to innovate. the moment someone creates something
new, other companies will steal it.

it is not hyperbole to say the industry will be destroyed. it's a fact.

Am 26.06.22 um 21:32 schrieb nospam:
> exactly, leaving only the largest 'commercial tech companies', who can
> then blackmail everyone else. it's a horrific idea.

Dummer Schwätzer.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 27.06.22 um 12:22 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t9bke6$b08h$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>>>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>>>
>>> rubbish.
>>>
>>> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
>>> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
>>> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
>>> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.
>>
>> Under the current model. The model would change.
>
> for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
> to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
> it.

You did obviously not understand Open Source.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

In article <t9c15j$o8qr$2@solani.org>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

>
> You did obviously not understand Open Source.

i understand that you want to steal other people's work.

Am 27.06.22 um 14:21 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t9c15j$o8qr$2@solani.org>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You did obviously not understand Open Source.
>
> i understand that you want to steal other people's work.

You are a braindead anonymous Troll. That's all.

Big tech and Trolls like you try to steal other people's money over and
over again for the same they paid a couple of times already.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 27.06.22 um 12:22 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t9blj7$b95r$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>>>>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>>>>>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
>>>>> eliminated.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.
>>>
>>> good point. red hat and canonical are as big as apple, microsoft and
>>> google, with a massive user base, and a plethora of features not found
>>> in any other product.
>>>
>>> oh wait...
>>
>> Apple et al are obscenely big and horde massive amount of cash from the
>> economy. That's not good for society or the economy. Trillion dollar
>> companies are immoral.
>
> rubbish.

It is less a question of morale. It is very dangerous for democratic
freedom and it undermines the legitimate institutions.

In many cases it creates monoplies which have to be broken up at any price.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 27.06.22 um 12:22 schrieb nospam:
> In article <t9bke6$b08h$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Under the current model. The model would change.
>
> for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
> to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
> it.

You capabilities to think beyond what you already know for many years is
very very limited.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9bke6$b08h$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>>>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>>>
>>> rubbish.
>>>
>>> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
>>> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
>>> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
>>> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.
>>
>> Under the current model. The model would change.
>
> for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
> to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
> it.

You can't steal open source software. That's the point.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9bke6$b08h$3@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
>>>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
>>>
>>> rubbish.
>>>
>>> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
>>> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
>>> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
>>> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.
>>
>> Under the current model. The model would change.
>
> for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
> to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
> it.

You can't steal open source software. That's the point.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9blj7$b95r$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>>>>>>> having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>>>>>> commercial tech companies is considerably reduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the incentive to create software to earn one's living is utterly
>>>>> eliminated.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. OSS can easily be commercialised. Just ask Red Hat and Canonical.
>>>
>>> good point. red hat and canonical are as big as apple, microsoft and
>>> google, with a massive user base, and a plethora of features not found
>>> in any other product.
>>>
>>> oh wait...
>>
>> Apple et al are obscenely big and horde massive amount of cash from the
>> economy. That's not good for society or the economy. Trillion dollar
>> companies are immoral.
>
> rubbish.

Your insight is stunning.

>> The point is business can exist in an open-source model. It will neither be
>> "eliminated" or "destroyed". Stop with the hyperbole which is clearly
>> bollocks.
>
> very few companies can exist under such a model because there is no
> longer any motivation to innovate.

Demonstrably false.

> the moment someone creates something
> new, other companies will steal it.

You can't steal what is given to you for free.

> it is not hyperbole to say the industry will be destroyed. it's a fact.

Rubbish. Open source is already profitable. Fact.

In article <t9ebm8$11f8o$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>> OSS may destroy a few companies, which is probably a good thing, but the
> >>>> industry will be fine. It would need to adapt, but it would be fine.
> >>>
> >>> rubbish.
> >>>
> >>> it would destroy every company except the largest ones because there is
> >>> no longer an incentive for any company to come up with something new
> >>> and innovative, only to be copied by the large companies, who know that
> >>> the smaller companies don't have the resources to win a legal battle.
> >>
> >> Under the current model. The model would change.
> >
> > for the worse. as i said, it would destroy the industry. the motivation
> > to create something new would be gone because everyone else will steal
> > it.
>
> You can't steal open source software. That's the point.

you're missing the point.

when something of value (your work) is obtained without compensation
(you weren't paid for it), it's generally called stealing.

maybe you are in the fortunate position to be able to work hard
creating new products without being paid for your efforts, but that is
not the case for just about everyone else.

In article <t9ebvk$11g3l$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > the moment someone creates something
> > new, other companies will steal it.
>
> You can't steal what is given to you for free.

when something of value (your work) is obtained without compensation
(you weren't paid for it), it's generally called stealing.

the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
release *everything* as open source, which will cause just about every
software developer to go out of business, as their revenue stream will
instantly vanish.

so not only are you stealing their work, but you're also stealing
future revenue and putting many people out of work.

Am 28.06.22 um 15:40 schrieb nospam:
> the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
> release *everything* as open source,

Nobody claimed such a thing. That is only the figment of your imagination.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

In article <t9f6hp$p8ir$1@solani.org>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> > the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
> > release *everything* as open source,
>
> Nobody claimed such a thing. That is only the figment of your imagination.

you did.

In article <t93p98$a2b$2@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:
> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
> solution exists.

In article <t98rs6$3q5rr$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
<hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
> > forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
> > having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>
> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
> commercial tech companies and unjustified profit margins will be
> considerably reduced.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t9f6hp$p8ir$1@solani.org>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> > the claim was that all software developers should be *forced* to
>> > release *everything* as open source,
>>
>> Nobody claimed such a thing. That is only the figment of your imagination.
>
>
> you did.

No, what he writes is that public bodies should use an open source
solution when looking for software, when it exists.
That does not force anybody to release everything as open source!
In markets where single developers have the monopoly on the solution,
it doesn't change anything.
In situations where an open source solution exists, developers still
can opt to keep their code closed source. Only they would not be
selected for this contract.

>
> In article <t93p98$a2b$2@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
> wrote:
>> Open Source should be legally required by public bodies whenever a
>> solution exists.
>
>
>
> In article <t98rs6$3q5rr$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz
> <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 25.06.22 um 22:04 schrieb nospam:
>> > forcing open source will destroy the software industry as well as
>> > having a significant adverse effect on the hardware industry.
>>
>> It certainly will have an effect but a positive one. Blackmailing by
>> commercial tech companies and unjustified profit margins will be
>> considerably reduced.

In article <slrntbmiac.3e5.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> No, what he writes is that public bodies should use an open source
> solution when looking for software, when it exists.

they do exactly that, however, it's usually low quality and often not
usable. there are exceptions, but they are rare.

> That does not force anybody to release everything as open source!

that is not supported by the facts.