3 ms·

So Microsoft is highlighting the value of software freedom and the harm of software non-freedom: we're all granted permission to port free software (as Microsof

So Microsoft is highlighting the value of software freedom and the harm of software non-freedom: we're all granted permission to port free software (as Microsoft claims to have done with the Linux kernel, BusyBox, and more) but only Microsoft -- the proprietor -- is allowed to port Windows. So long as we value software freedom we can take steps to defend software freedom and continue to see practical gains. But proprietary software leads us to a dead-end waiting for a willing proprietor to do something for us (and thus providing a result we cannot trust).

TimTheTinker 8y ago
I see this proprietary/free duality as a fundamental weakness of copyright law and intellectual-property-based business models. As things currently stand, software that provides the most value to society also often happens to make the least money (and vice versa). To truly prosper, I wonder if society will somehow have to move beyond copyrights, patents, and intellectual property rights as they currently exist. I’m not sure what the solution is, but a recent HN post caught my attention — it was about how quickly Germany caught up to England’s industrialization in the 19th century when books weren’t copyrightable. This may provide a clue. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17329345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17329345
jankotek 8y ago
Microsoft is pretty open compared to competitors. It has long history of providing Windows source code to universities (I recall Win2000). It also provides debug symbols for its libraries. Try to get source code for Apple, Amazon or Google products...
- scruffyherder 8y ago
  Like Darwin source code? Granted they don't make it very easy to run, but it can be done with a HELL of a lot of effort.