Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Gitlab and Gitorious (was Re: support me)

[Will Hill]

I can think of ways and reasons what you say is just what software owners 
would like and need.  

Unintentional open washing is a negative consequence of mandatory source 
release.  Just having source code won't protect users of software like 
Windows.  We can't even be sure Microsoft will comply but we do know that our 
government has already cooperated with them to violate us.  The public would 
be fooled.  

30 years of bad laws created powerful and dangerous software owners.  Simply 
abolishing copyright would give those companies a second generation of free 
software to rip off, one that's larger and better than the first generation 
they plundered in the 1980s.  

To get rid of non free software, we must maintain all of the advantages we 
have now.  Currently, non free software is experiencing two crises - inferior 
code that comes from the inherent waste of information ownership, and a 
complete collapse in confidence caused by rampant spying and malice, revealed 
in part by Edward Snowden.  We must not give them competitive code and we 
must not let them wash themselves with fake openness.  

I'd rather deliver a knock out blow to them by removing copyright protection 
for non free software.  


On Sunday 08 March 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I don't see any real justification for the view that mandating source
> release for mass-distributed products could be a bad thing.