> monetising any type of software is actually hard and getting harder
When you model things from first principles, this is how it ought to be.
Unencumbered symbols are strictly better for most people than enchained symbols. The exception is there is a certain class, the "Royal" class, (who receive revenue from royalties either directly or via stock ownership greater than the royalty taxes they pay others), who have historically derived great monopoly profits from software.
But I think it's now gotten to the point where there is no denying that open source, freely distributed software is strictly better (in the long run). No one is clamoring to put Windows instead of Linux on their phones or deep space satellites.
So the question is: do we continue to make ideas worse for 99% so 1% can have monopoly-level royalties, or do we change the laws?
I used to work at Microsoft and it was fantastic. But I couldn't help but keep in mind that the utopia in Redmond was made possible only because of the Microslavery that IP laws put on everyone else.
When you model things from first principles, this is how it ought to be.
Unencumbered symbols are strictly better for most people than enchained symbols. The exception is there is a certain class, the "Royal" class, (who receive revenue from royalties either directly or via stock ownership greater than the royalty taxes they pay others), who have historically derived great monopoly profits from software.
But I think it's now gotten to the point where there is no denying that open source, freely distributed software is strictly better (in the long run). No one is clamoring to put Windows instead of Linux on their phones or deep space satellites.
So the question is: do we continue to make ideas worse for 99% so 1% can have monopoly-level royalties, or do we change the laws?
I used to work at Microsoft and it was fantastic. But I couldn't help but keep in mind that the utopia in Redmond was made possible only because of the Microslavery that IP laws put on everyone else.