alt Hacker NewsYour star trek example is cute but misses one important point: cost.
In ST there is apparently an infinite energy source running these replicators, so almost no cost. For any software project, developmemt and maintanenace costs time/money, so anyone replicating your invention or contributing to your project requires time/money(/expertise as a derivative).
That's what the GPL doesnt get and what scares me alittle about the future of the linux foundation.
Imagine Torvals gone and only highly payed corporate devs maintaning the linux kernel and worse, controlling the foundation. If a user hostile descision is made and the nerd outcry is shacking the force, what are they supposed to do? Forking and maintaning their own kernel in competition with high velocity veterans that just boil the frogs slow enough?
I cant imagine this succeeding. Just look at the slowly shrinking market share of BSD.
https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-bsd
Or the very uneven fight between MS Office and LibreOffice.
// In ST there is apparently an infinite energy source running //
Think about a server farm, which rents out cpu time for linux servers. Sure, you have to play for energy, land, and labor. But are you saying that somehow implies that linux would have to be BSD licensed instead of GPL licensed?
I agree, energy, land, and labor are things which we don't have infinite supplies of, and therefore we need some way to ration them and distribute them efficiently. But I don't see what bearing this has on software licensing.
// If a user hostile descision is made //
Yeah, I don't see what this has to do with BSD vs. GPL or any other software license. I mean, Microsoft has been "boiling the water" forever.
// cant imagine this succeeding. Just look at the slowly shrinking market share of BSD. //
So the answer is not releasing things under the GPL? I don't quite follow the argument here, would you care to clarify?