Whether it's biotech or software, there's always tension between creating incentives for innovation vs fostering wide availability and openness.
The Free Software / Open Source world exists on the openness side, and while some business (including Apple) have made a business while contributing to open source projects, there is sometimes a catch. For example, Google gives away the core of Android (the Android Open Source Project), but if an OEM wants Google Maps, Google Play, etc, they have to play by Google's rules.
Anyone who tells you it's just as easy to make a living selling free software (what GNU calls it) as it is selling proprietary software is full of shit. It's not as easy. It can be done, and Open Source can be a selling point, but it's nowhere near as straightforward as just selling a thing for a price. Copyrights, like the copyrights protecting iOS and macOS, let companies just sell a thing for a price. No bullshit.
Apple, like any corporate interest, has reason to support or oppose various laws. I'm an Apple fanboy as much as anyone, but I'll readily admit they're on the wrong side of history with right-to-repair. Apple's an excessively litigious company. They're bullies in some markets. But I still prefer their simple transactional value proposition, which is that you pay for goods and services. Software is a good.
Open Source software is great too, and often as good as the proprietary stuff, but a world without copyright (basically what he is suggesting) would have a very hard time promoting the useful arts. For that matter, Open Source licenses typically function through copyright law. The GNU GPL, for example, only works because it has copyright as a backstop if you refuse to accept the license.
Wait till you google Richard M. Stallman.
Whether it's biotech or software, there's always tension between creating incentives for innovation vs fostering wide availability and openness.
The Free Software / Open Source world exists on the openness side, and while some business (including Apple) have made a business while contributing to open source projects, there is sometimes a catch. For example, Google gives away the core of Android (the Android Open Source Project), but if an OEM wants Google Maps, Google Play, etc, they have to play by Google's rules.
Anyone who tells you it's just as easy to make a living selling free software (what GNU calls it) as it is selling proprietary software is full of shit. It's not as easy. It can be done, and Open Source can be a selling point, but it's nowhere near as straightforward as just selling a thing for a price. Copyrights, like the copyrights protecting iOS and macOS, let companies just sell a thing for a price. No bullshit.
Apple, like any corporate interest, has reason to support or oppose various laws. I'm an Apple fanboy as much as anyone, but I'll readily admit they're on the wrong side of history with right-to-repair. Apple's an excessively litigious company. They're bullies in some markets. But I still prefer their simple transactional value proposition, which is that you pay for goods and services. Software is a good.
Open Source software is great too, and often as good as the proprietary stuff, but a world without copyright (basically what he is suggesting) would have a very hard time promoting the useful arts. For that matter, Open Source licenses typically function through copyright law. The GNU GPL, for example, only works because it has copyright as a backstop if you refuse to accept the license.