With great self-awareness WinRAR releases official $150 merch: 'What better way to support the software you’ve NEVER paid for than by buying a WinRAR bag?'
With great self-awareness WinRAR releases official $150 merch: 'What better way to support the software you’ve NEVER paid for than by buying a WinRAR bag?'
Libre software selling whatever they can is good for maintaining development.
If the Linux kernel ever changed to AGPLv3 I would for sure buy one GNU/Linux stable release each year to make up for corporations that would ban Linux from their network due to AGPL3 legal obligations.
It’s proprietary.
corporations that would ban Linux from their network
You can't change the license retroactively. Corporations would likely hard-fork the kernel at the last GPL2 commit and move it to a restricted but compliant access model like Red Hat did.
You can change the license moving forward though it takes a tremendous amount of effort.
Only rich companies have dedicated full time kernel developers. The vast majority literally take full advantage of the fact that the kernel is free (gratis). And any changes they make to the GPL2 kernel is still subject to open source disclosure.
I believe Torvalds has publicly stated that he wouldn't support a move to GPL3, let alone AGPL.
Prob those companies will go back to windows server or freebsd lol.
For the sake of basic security, there should be a lot more corporate adoption of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Company networks would be a lot more secure than using Linux due to Linux's schizophrenic nature. Ask a full time BSD sysadmin their view on Linux.
Honest question: to what are you referring by "Linux’s schizophrenic nature"?
I thought I might get questioned on it, no prob Bob. For Linux, both the kernel and the 400 distributions, I say schizophrenic they are all labelled as Linux but they can't function together. The Arch kernel is different from the Parabola kernel, and the Fedora kernel and the kernel.org generic kernel from the Slackware kernel, The way Pllasma runs on Gentoo has been modified from how Plasma runs on Devuan. Again, they all fall under "Linux" but can function quite different and any 3rd party software has to be modified to be customized for each distribution. If a program in Debian can't function, SUSE people might not be able solve it if they don't know the Debian layout. The Linux eco-systems is very fractured, divided, yet all run Linux kernel, they are the same but different because they're distributions, but run the same system but not compatible with each other, it's schizophrenic.
In comparison to OpenBSD, it is on group of people that develop the OpenBSD kernel, OpenBSD system files and libraries, with a single point of focus behind their engineering and design, and develop their own software management tools. Similar with FreeBSD, that there is a set team that develop the FreeBSD kernel who have nothing at all to do with OpenBSD kernel. What works on FreeBSD is not going to work on FreeBSD. And the FreeBSD team develops their own FreeBSD system files and libraries with their own FreeBSD design and engineering so that each BSD is their own standalone operating system. A FreeBSD kernel will never function or be recognized by an OpenBSD system. Porting a program to OpenBSD is not going to work in FreeBSD because the whole system is designed differently, that's why each BSD is an operating system and why BSD does not have distributions. FreeBSD will never be able to read a NetBSD file.
True, additionally windows server doesn't give them flexibility.