You beg people to give others the freedom to take the freedom of others away? I'd rather give freedom to only those who will reciprocate it. Public structures (such as real bridges) must have diagrams on file with the government for accountability. Also, with software, hiding the source does not result in security (Whitman, 2017). Maybe some or all types of software should be required to be open source at minimum (or GPL). Gerber can hold your cutter machines worth tens of thousands of dollars hostage until you pay for a maintenance plan (thousands per year) just to get pattern-making software and driver updates to make it work beyond XP if you bought it then. Similar situations exist with machining (CNC/milling) firmware: One tooling company near me with two branches went out of business after a firmware upgrade the manufacturer insisted on installing for fixing issues--it caused malfunctions, and they later admitted they never planned to maintain that firmware. Companies can buy out software then discontinue it, such as with MX Suite (had been used for many websites), trueSpace (had been used by indie game devs due to excellent x model format support), and many others, abandoning users who invested in it. Bre Pettis regrets closed policies for MakerBot and is back to doing small business developing hardware using an open platform. You disproved your own money argument, since the money is made from service, which is still possible and widely successful with GPL software and devices that use it. App stores or convenient hardware are good methods of making money on GPL too. See Free software, free society: Richard Stallman at TEDxGeneva 2014. References: Whitman, M. E. (2017). Principles of Information Security (6th ed.).
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
You beg people to give others the freedom to take the freedom of others away? I'd rather give freedom to only those who will reciprocate it. Public structures (such as real bridges) must have diagrams on file with the government for accountability. Also, with software, hiding the source does not result in security (Whitman, 2017). Maybe some or all types of software should be required to be open source at minimum (or GPL). Gerber can hold your cutter machines worth tens of thousands of dollars hostage until you pay for a maintenance plan (thousands per year) just to get pattern-making software and driver updates to make it work beyond XP if you bought it then. Similar situations exist with machining (CNC/milling) firmware: One tooling company near me with two branches went out of business after a firmware upgrade the manufacturer insisted on installing for fixing issues--it caused malfunctions, and they later admitted they never planned to maintain that firmware. Companies can buy out software then discontinue it, such as with MX Suite (had been used for many websites), trueSpace (had been used by indie game devs due to excellent x model format support), and many others, abandoning users who invested in it. Bre Pettis regrets closed policies for MakerBot and is back to doing small business developing hardware using an open platform. You disproved your own money argument, since the money is made from service, which is still possible and widely successful with GPL software and devices that use it. App stores or convenient hardware are good methods of making money on GPL too. See Free software, free society: Richard Stallman at TEDxGeneva 2014. References: Whitman, M. E. (2017). Principles of Information Security (6th ed.).