[pp.int.general] 3-step usage rights / forced licensing model

[Christian Hufgard]

Pasi Palmulehto wrote:
>
>> > Would companies afford that MS would deny any security updates from
>> > them?
>> They'd installed the hacked updates.
>
> They probably would do it already.

And today they can be punished for doing so.


>> > MS would be stupid if it would let ppl download them just like
>> > that.
>>
>> Maybe - but the cannot prevent people updating there os.
>
> New MS OS comes too slow to be enough for security update.

Sorry, my fault. "Updating their os" meant "installing hacked security
updates".


>> And the could be legally hacked.
>
> I don't really know would that make any difference compared to this day.

Well... If you do something illegal, you can be punished for doing so.


> Maybe closed source could have that same 5 years commercial protection,
> it just wouldn't continue with 20 years of compensation protection
> without source codes. And not just software, also music, movies and
> other information that isn't put on databank. What are pros and cons and
> are there really a lot of systems for who opening the source code is not
> acceptable?

I am working as a software developer and my company will not release any
sourcecode as open source. Basically, because there are a lot of other
companies that are willing to serve the same customer. And if the had our
source code, that would be much easier.

Christian