The difference between copyleft and patentleft is clear: When you have a patentleft license, you force anything merely similar to software under the license to open up its code and be open source. Combine that with something in the license stating that any patents of software that violates this license's terms must also be under this license's terms, and you have the perfect PSKiller license.

In my opinion, using such license in software development is diabolical, and will be actually harmful for the whole industry.

I think that:

• It makes sense to patent a technology/algorithm so everybody can use it for free - this is useful, everybody will benefit from idea.
• It also makes sense to patent technology so whoever uses it will have to pay the author - this is profitable and author will get a reward.
• However, the only reason I see to patent a technology/algorithm under a license where whatever uses the technology shall become opensource is to make people suffer/hate you. Not everybody will have chance to benefit from idea, and author will get no reward. So, what's the point? Forcing your ideology onto everybody just for the heck of it? That looks kinda sadistic to me.

Large companies have cash they can use to make quality/polished products. Opensource teams have problems with funding, as as a result if you use patentleft, it will cut off large companies, as a result users not get quality product, but will be stuck with hackish/unfinished opensource alternative with glitchy gui. Excepts zealots, nobody would benefit from that.

Actually no, companies will still be able to use proprietary logos/branding and still be able to sell technical support, just not keep code proprietary.

:doh: *sigh* I believe the point SigTerm is trying to make is that for most proprietary software companies, that business model simply wouldn't work.

In my opinion, this is a dumb idea.
Is it your goal to destroy proprietary software no matter what?
Destroying the planet is also a way to destroy proprietary software. Is this what you want?
For me PSKiller license sounds really similar to the idea of book burning.

In my opinion, you're chasing wrong ideals. Nobody will benefit from destroying proprietary software - you're barking at the wrong tree. What I'd recommend is to try making better software. Give users new tools - better, easier to user, and better suitable for their needs. Make it bug-free. This is what important - quality product for people. If you don't like existing tools, make better one. If you don't like current licenses, make better ones. And once you do make a better tools, you can either get profit or satisfaction from it. This is, IMO is a better way to do things - improve code, make it attractive, create better software, make people happier (and earn cash in progress, if you want). But of course, it is much easier to blame proprietary software for everything.

Well it sure is working for Red Hat (seeing as though they're the first billion-dollar company to be based entirely on FOSS)!

Microsoft, Apple and Electronic Arts definitely earn much more than RedHat, which might mean that their idea is working better. And as I already said, RedHat computers aren't dominating desktop market for some reason. To me it looks like there are more successful companies that rely on proprietary model, than companies that rely on opensource model.

it's nice .. well see... just that design is what would be ideal to use but with software alternatives ...

Well if Microsoft were forced to open up the code for Windows due to patent infringement then they would be another Red Hat. Same with many other companies.

And they would still be making the same amount of money as they already. Why? Because if they can't make money off of the software but still can off of tech support, they will merely raise the tech support price. And they wouldn't be hurt a bit. The only difference between the new Microsoft and the old Microsoft is that the new Microsoft would be taught not to be so paranoid about copyright/patent infringement and therefore not to be so greedy and like a robber-baron.

They wouldn't be another redhat. But they could decide to change company profile. For example, they could concentrate on console game development.

Prove it.

I'm not convinced.

In my opinion, technical support is meant for situations when there is a problem with a product - software bug, for example. I.e. if user encounters a bug, user contacts the technical support and seek solution. If a manual is not clear enough, user contacts technical support. By your logic, user will have to pay for situations which are developer's fault.
I.e. when user encounters a bug, user has to pay. When manual is unclear, user has to pay again. Where is the logic in this? I would send software with such requirements straight into recycle bin. I want to pay for product, and get a warranty that in case of problems I get assistance for free instead.

I think situation would go like this:

• At the moment they Microsoft opens up the source, somebody grabs it, makes competitive product (opensource license allows it) under different name and logo ("Doors" for example), and offer support forums for free.
• As a result Microsoft takes significant losses, fires half of employees and switches to different market (console game development or hardware).
• The OS market gets flooded with 50 different versions of "Doors" operating systems maintained by hobbiest, each slightly different to each other, and all of them more or less incompatible with each other. All of them with minor GUI glitches.
• As a result situation gets confusing to consumer.
• 50 different versions of "Doors" add difficulties for development, and makes implementing copy-protection
  difficult, which makes major game developers leave the platform and switch to console game development.
• Since gaming was one of the reason new hardware is being made, hardware development stalls, manufacturers take losses, and change tactics. Instead of increasing processing power, they try cutting development costs, or switch to military/government orders.

I cannot predict future, as a result I may be mistaken about few points, but in general I think switching windows to opensource model would be crazy decision with mostly negative consequences to the consumers.

Also, I don't think that "opensource community" would be able to make use of opensource windows code. ID software made a lot of their engines available under opensource licenses, but for some reason I don't remember even a one major well-known "AAA" project made based on those opensource engines. There are few examples of nearly-succesfull games made on this engine, but they normally don't even reach Q3 quality level. So why situation with windows sources would be different?

I think you don't get it. If, as a company, you ignore copyright/patent infringement, if you're not greedy, you'll be taken advantage of, you'll take losses that eventually lead to your bankruptcy. If you get no profit - you disappear, because cash keeps things happening. If you really have evidence of unlawful actions of Microsoft, why don't you take it to the court instead? If you don't have evidence, then the whole "robber-baron" talk just a loud noise.

Besides, why don't you address this post? Or this one? Because it looks like you're avoiding strong arguments on purpose and only pop back into discussion when somebody states opinion remotely similar to yours. You bash microsoft and proprietary software, but don't support your positions with arguments, don't explain your reasons, as a result it sounds like a "linux fanboy" talk.

While I abhor the deplorable business practices of MS, people do have the option to choose. The fact that so many willingly support MS and choose to be willing victims, is not MS's fault, but rather those who choose to use their products. I support people's right to choose. Luckily, those of us who care have alternatives- so let MS do what they want- when enough people get tired of their BS, MS will decline. I think as word gets out that Linux is now more friendly to the average user, and that many distros now offer a GUI (Which I find easier to use than Windows), Linux will grow exponentially. Not that MS has anything to worry about though- just as Rent-A-Center, Aarons, Pay-day loan places and Buy Here Pay Here car lots always seem to have a willing base of foolish people who are glad to patronize such places.

Ya can't cure stupid[Not that everyone who uses MS products is stupid]- and they deserve the right to choose, too. Vote with your feet(or rather, your wallet).

That's what I meant by "forcing people against their will to spread FOSS".

well.. better just decide which distro is the best(lol? flame wars ? haha) and gain money(through donations)then make a nice distro CD(or dvd) and sell it for like... as i saw dvds on the osdisc site are 12 then put it at like 15$(meh:|)and make some advertising from that money..

deleted.

It does sucks when Microsoft is preloaded on systems. However, we're ain't force to use it. We can remove it at will. Like I did.

As for proprietary software, I'm no fan of it either. But, I will use proprietary software or codecs if necessary. For example, gnash is not widely supported on most sites so I have to use Adobe flash and I use nvidia, the proprietary version for 3D acceleration and compiz effects.

Unless anyone is a Richard M Stallmaan type, we need to understand that FOSS and proprietary software/codecs go hand in hand and makes linux a better experience.