This thread is permanently archived
Why isn't [insert OS] an open technology?
| Money.
| Because the entertainment industry have lobbied for the extension of copyrights to absurd lengths.
When copyrights were first implemented they lasted 8 years and it was considered more than enough time to earn money on your creation.
Buy due to extensive lobbying you can now hold a copyright for 120 years after the creator is dead.
>>fc46ed
Dumb
| >>695115
Y'all, op literally mentioned in the first post that engineering is protected by patents, not copyright. They're different things, people.
| >>694836
Because the most important legacy of Bill Gates and microsoft isn't DOS, Windows or Software/Technology at all. Their biggest success was marketing and lobby work to build and secure a monopoly on a new market - based on the obscure and ridicolous idea of "intelectual property".
| See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extinguish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Use_in_corporate_tax_avoidance
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/intellectual_property/
Digging deeper into microsofts history you'll find many cases of how earlyand often they pushed the highly debatable idea of intelectual property.
This thread is permanently archived
| Engineering works are all protected by patents, not copyright, and patents have rather short lifespan so more technologies become available for the benefit of the public.
So why isn't the same thing happening with OS? Where is my commercial open source Windows-like OS?