Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it." It's a very pure creation that doesn't depend on any prior property of any kind.
One or all of these statements is true:
You are not a professional content creator.
You have an extreem misunderstanding of the creative process.
You are a content creator, but you are a selfish ego-maniac who does not recognize the sources that inspire you.
Neither of my pro sound devices work under linux. I have an Event EZ-BUS (USB mixer), and a Yamaha DS2416.
None of my favorite audio applications work under linux. It's great to see some open-source competition out there (the more choices, the better!), but MusE will NOT be replacing my Cubase/Psycle rig anytime soon.
I'm a geek as much as the next/. user, but I'm a musician first, and it's critical for me to have a creative process that flows well when I write my music.
Right now, the linux desktop is less than inspiring (don't shoot me). I have WindowsXP with cygwin, litestep, and a bunch of hacks that essentially make it work like a well-oiled unix box, but all the convenience of broad application support and great compatibility.
The service and sales pitch are good, but I guarantee you're losing a lot of potential conversions.
Your site design looks like just walked out of 1997, as does your HTML (with the exception of the CSS code).
In order to make a conversion, you have to overcome a few important obstacles. One of them is trust. One of the most important trust factors on the web is a professional-looking design.
Design matters! Check out this before and after comparison. Which site would you be more likely to give your money to?
Improving your design would improve your conversion rate, and that could make a BIG DIFFERENCE to your bottom line. You'll get more sales in less time, improve your ROI for advertizing, build better good-will and brand-loyalty with your existing users, and get more inbound links, which will in turn bring in more potential customers faster.
Over time, the user thought process changes. People don't work with computer folders the same way that they work with files and drawers -- this, IMO, is a good thing. Computers aren't bound by the same laws, and the interfaces don't have to be, either.
I have grown quite accustomed to tabbed browsing (thanks to mozilla, and firefox). I hate the idea of keeping everything in separate windows based on which site I'm visiting. I browse with everything in the same window (separate tabs), based on the tasks I'm working on. For example, right now, there are four different slashdot stories (the ones I'm interested in reading) in four different tabs. When I finish with one, I'll close it and move on to the next. If a link sparks my interest, I'll open it in a new tab (set to open in the background) and move on to it next.
In another browser window, I have another browser session waiting for my attention. What would be really neat is if I could save these browsing sessions like files and open them at a later date.
If my file manager worked like this, I'd be thrilled. I'd love to have different folders open in different tabs for a related work session and drag-and-drop files between them by hovering over a tab (which would then become active so I can drop files into that folder). Again, I'd love the ability to save the state of the tabs, so that those common file-management tasks are facilitated more readily.
THAT would be real progress. Even better -- abandon the strict file hierarchy altogether, and instead use a database system that allows you to combine the hierarchial file paradigm with labels (anybody use gmail?). A single file might seem to live in a variety of places... For example, if you have some business graphics, you could browse to it from the "business" branch, or the "graphics" branch (both root folders). Attempting to work this way with symlinks and shortcuts is messy, at best, and nobody wants to create a complicated query just to find a file they could have openned with three keystrokes, given a decent thought-hierarchy file browser.
It seems to me that the user interface should mimick the way we think -- not the way our physical office works. That's the advantage of a computer -- we can make it work better and faster than related physical processes.
And have you recently looked at the list of backported server related packages on backports.org? The fact that such a site even exists speaks to Debian's failure to produce a release that is both stable and functional (by stable I mean "not changing daily", not "not crashing").
The fact that backports.org exists is a clear example of why debian is still relevant, despite the unpopular release phylosophy.
I don't mind using backports.org once in a while. Clearly, there are people who prefer the release schedules of other operating systems. I'm still happy with debian.
One of the things I like most about debian is that it gives me so many choices, that are often much easier to manage than other distros I have tried... It's far from perfect, but I have tried other alternatives recently, and I am still running debian.
I agree, for the most part, but I personally haven't had any trouble mixing a small handful of packages from sarge with a mostly woody-based distro. There aren't that many new features that my servers just can't live without... at least, not until mysql gets its promised upgrades (triggers, stored procedures, etc..). I don't mind the slow pace of debian releases. Woody is still functional and dependable.
I actually think that the slow pace would annoy hobbyists more than server administrators. You have to go outside the woody release to get all the cool new features in Xfree86, KDE, gnome, etc... Debian certainly isn't competing well as a desktop OS.
I do like the BSD license better than the GPL, yes, but I don't consider FreeBSD to be a complete OS.
My definition of a complete OS is a system that provides everything I need to run webservers (which FreeBSD does just fine) as well as desktop applications (where all un*x's fall short, in my opinion, with the notable exception of OSX).
Again, controversial viewpoint on/.... I'm pragmatic about it though: It's easy to satisfy all of my software needs (but none of my phylosophical ideals) on Windows, and it's easy to satisfy all of my software needs (but few of my ideals) on Macs running OSX.
It's difficult (ranging to completely impractical) to satisfy all of my software needs on linux and other forms of un*x, free or otherwise, even though they're much closer in terms of my philosophical ideals.
As somebody who would still like to get real work done... guess which OS I run for my desktop music and video production needs...
Now, this is a post I can agree with to some extent. However, when I read the text in question, I agreed with the social contract completely.
What I don't agree with is the strict definition of free which requires derivative works to be released under the same license. I personally like attribution licenses and/or public domain grants. You might say that the debian folks want to force everybody to subscribe to their form of freedom, whereas I don't care if somebody wants to yank large bits of my code, slap it in their system, and sell it for $1,000.
More power to 'em.
I realize this is a controversial view in the open-source community. I'd still like to see a complete OS with apps that all use licenses that aren't picky about what they link to, who's making money, or whether or not Microsoft gets to benefit from open-source innovations... I think software should be software, not a legal quagmire.
Sarge does not need to be "released" to be relevant. The software still runs on the debian OS. You can still upgrade your kernel. IMO, the best thing about debian is that you can start with a very minimal linux install and add the packages you need as you need them a lot easier than is possible with many other distributions.
I never said I wanted it to do what the GPL does. And what is wrong with a toothless license? I don't want my software license to have teeth! I want it to be friendly and allow me the freedom to do whatever I want to do with the code.
The GPL is NOT free. It is overly restrictive and annoying -- and I'm an open-source supporter.
"It also takes away the right for a producer of the derivitave work to choose an alternate open-source license for their branch of the code... placing the ideals of the GPL code in a position of higher priority than the ideals of the developer of the derivative work." - me.
Did you even read the post?
I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. These awards should be used to recognize important milestones in technological development. Digidesign has not done anything in the last year that could really qualify as an important milestone -- at least, not anything they haven't done before.
The developments that have been literally transforming the industry, lowering the barrier to entry in the movie production field, have been all but ignored by the awards.
I am one of the slashdotters who is obsessed over the semantics of the word steal. I also believe we should support content creators who do really cool stuff (John Carmack, for instance).
I also would never go into a store and take so much as a candy bar without paying for it.
I also do not hesitate to give my music away for free, because I firmly believe that bits and information CANNOT be treated like physical property.
The use of unlicensed software is not anything like the theft of physical goods. The idea that it is "stealing" unpaid money is ridiculous in that it assumes that if the product could not be had for free, it certainly would be paid for -- an assumption that anybody with a basic understanding of markets could tell you is utterly false.
Cost of aquisition has a serious impact on the number of sales that are made.
You obviously do not understand the complexities of the topic.
- Eric
That was the case ten years ago. It's not the case today. Pro Tools is still standard in many high end studios, but not the only DAW system present, and often not even the primary DAW system used.
In some areas, Pro Tools is still very common -- especially in holywood, but I wasn't talking about holywood, I was talking about the industry as a whole, and in the rest of the world, garage studios, indie production companies, etc.. it is Pro Tools that is the exception.
- Eric
SCO has already said a lot of stupid things that they haven't proven. They've already sent notices out to companies who use linux (the first step in the process of suing a user) -- even though they still haven't got a ruling in the IBM case, and proven to anybody anywhere that they have a case at all.
All this countdown shows the world is that SCO is consistent about one thing: much adu about nothing.
- Eric
The GPL does not protect the world from commercial software. What it does do is make it a lot harder for open-source software to play nice in a world dominated by closed-source software. It also takes away the right for a producer of the derivitave work to choose an alternate open-source license for their branch of the code... placing the ideals of the GPL code in a position of higher priority than the ideals of the developer of the derivative work.
Bill gates would love to force everybody to release software his way.
FSF would love to force everybody to release software its way.
I would love it if both sides would stop treating software like physical property. It isn't. It doesn't work that way. It can't work that way.
Trying to force information to behave like property legally is NOT the answer to our problems. You mention you'd like to see copyright go away. I don't think that's going to happen, realistically, but either way, the GPL relies on copyright law to function.
If the author of a GPL product did not have a copyright, he could not grant the rights he grants, nor could he impose the "you must also GPL derivitave works" clause. The work would be entirely out of his legal control the moment he released it -- a good thing, in my opinion.
The GPL has served a purpose, but I don't think it's the be all and end all of the open source movement, and I still contend that it's hypocritical.
The GPL essentially says, "information wants to be free" -- but then it says, "... but here's what you CAN'T DO with my software."
I have used protools. I think they deserved that recognition in the mid 90's, when they were really doing new and innovative things, but the most of their recent cool developments have happenned in the control equipment, rather than the software itself -- hell, protools on OS X was starting to look like vaporware to many of us, it took them so long to get it working.
In the mean-time, many other companies have done a lot of cool stuff in the audio industry that actually is new and innovative, especially in terms of software and equipment that costs less than $5k.
Most of the really cool innovation has come from the price drops that have made it possible to build an entire movie production studio for less than $20k -- including everything you need to record, mix, and post produce audio, quality cameras, and affordable NLE software.
Where is the mention of that? The garage studio revolution has arrived -- the key products in that revolution should be the ones recieving the awards this year... so where are they?
Okay, digidesign has done some neat things recently, but the most notable are the cool digital control consoles that attach to software-based workstations.
Digi was once widely recognized for building hardware that made mid-90's computers capable of audio feats that would not have been otherwise possible, but these days, there are a lot of other options, and protools is no longer an obvious choice over other software such as cubase sx, which has been very popular among smaller studios.
I suppose the academy is really not very interested in the cool developments that have made it easier for the indie movie scene, such as the terrific, and very affordable Behringer Truth monitors, and small digital mixers that cost less than $2k, but sound better and buss signals easier than the $10k mixers of yester-year.
I really think the coolest technical innovations in the movie and audio community recently have all been the ones that have made it easier to run a small studio out of your garage. I think that movement should be recognized a bit more by the academy.
Do you have a source on that claim? I'm actually interested in learning more about where Microsoft's money comes from. Obviously they do make money on license fees, but is it really "most of their money," is it half? Is it more than half? I think it's a good question.
I know they outsource their technical support (which users are charged for), because one of the providers they use is a large employer here (Utah) -- so they may be missing out on some revenue from that...
If they do make most of their money from license fees, but the industry average is somewhere around 8% (anybody have different numbers on that?), is it because they're better at extracting license fees (such as, with their notorious hardware deals), or is it because they're missing opportunities in terms of services, support, and solution deals with other large businesses?
- Eric
Perhaps it's been a while since you read the GPL. I disagree with it on a philosophical point... the GPL assumes it is software that should be free, and all works based on that software.
I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with the software they have, purchased, or otherwise. If they want to create a derivitave work and try to sell it, more power to them. Of course, since it's just a closed-source branch of open-source software, the market will take care of making it an uphill battle (who wants to pay for something they can get for free?)
The GPL does not go far enough to ensure freedom for people. It says essentially, "I shared my work, and if you want to use my code, YOU'D BETTER SHARE YOURS!"
Which seems a little bit hypocritical of a movement that claims to place freedom first. The content creator is STILL attempting to assert control over something that should be open to the public. It lends some validation to the idea that information, ideas, intellectual creations are somehow PROPERTY that an OWNER has a right to exert some CONTROL over.
In my opinion, that control is wholely artificial. It takes a lawsuit to enforce that control.
My view is essentially this:
If you can't padlock it or otherwise keep it to yourself, it isn't property. Once you release something into the wild, it's kindof like a kid leaving the nest -- you can offer advice, but you certainly can't ground the kid anymore if they stay out late.
First of all, I don't think that open-source software is really going to stand in the way of making a profit. By some estimates, software licenses account for only 8% of revenues in the software industry.
Second -- why is profit at the top of the list of priorities for this particular initiative? I believe that an open democracy is possible.
I don't believe in forced sharing, but I do believe that we should be allowed to share if we so desire. The wording here seems to suggest that sharing is a significant threat to selling, and that as such, it should be disallowed entirely. I realize that hasn't been said, but it's not a big stretch from his current position... I don't want to see the world start down that slippery slope.
Slashdot Mirror
One or all of these statements is true:
Neither of my pro sound devices work under linux. I have an Event EZ-BUS (USB mixer), and a Yamaha DS2416.
/. user, but I'm a musician first, and it's critical for me to have a creative process that flows well when I write my music.
None of my favorite audio applications work under linux. It's great to see some open-source competition out there (the more choices, the better!), but MusE will NOT be replacing my Cubase/Psycle rig anytime soon.
I'm a geek as much as the next
Right now, the linux desktop is less than inspiring (don't shoot me). I have WindowsXP with cygwin, litestep, and a bunch of hacks that essentially make it work like a well-oiled unix box, but all the convenience of broad application support and great compatibility.
Not to mention all the cool stuff that came out of the demoscene between 1994 - 2004. =)
The service and sales pitch are good, but I guarantee you're losing a lot of potential conversions.
Your site design looks like just walked out of 1997, as does your HTML (with the exception of the CSS code).
In order to make a conversion, you have to overcome a few important obstacles. One of them is trust. One of the most important trust factors on the web is a professional-looking design.
Design matters! Check out this before and after comparison. Which site would you be more likely to give your money to?
Improving your design would improve your conversion rate, and that could make a BIG DIFFERENCE to your bottom line. You'll get more sales in less time, improve your ROI for advertizing, build better good-will and brand-loyalty with your existing users, and get more inbound links, which will in turn bring in more potential customers faster.
Get your site a make-over.
Over time, the user thought process changes. People don't work with computer folders the same way that they work with files and drawers -- this, IMO, is a good thing. Computers aren't bound by the same laws, and the interfaces don't have to be, either.
I have grown quite accustomed to tabbed browsing (thanks to mozilla, and firefox). I hate the idea of keeping everything in separate windows based on which site I'm visiting. I browse with everything in the same window (separate tabs), based on the tasks I'm working on. For example, right now, there are four different slashdot stories (the ones I'm interested in reading) in four different tabs. When I finish with one, I'll close it and move on to the next. If a link sparks my interest, I'll open it in a new tab (set to open in the background) and move on to it next.
In another browser window, I have another browser session waiting for my attention. What would be really neat is if I could save these browsing sessions like files and open them at a later date.
If my file manager worked like this, I'd be thrilled. I'd love to have different folders open in different tabs for a related work session and drag-and-drop files between them by hovering over a tab (which would then become active so I can drop files into that folder). Again, I'd love the ability to save the state of the tabs, so that those common file-management tasks are facilitated more readily.
THAT would be real progress. Even better -- abandon the strict file hierarchy altogether, and instead use a database system that allows you to combine the hierarchial file paradigm with labels (anybody use gmail?). A single file might seem to live in a variety of places... For example, if you have some business graphics, you could browse to it from the "business" branch, or the "graphics" branch (both root folders). Attempting to work this way with symlinks and shortcuts is messy, at best, and nobody wants to create a complicated query just to find a file they could have openned with three keystrokes, given a decent thought-hierarchy file browser.
It seems to me that the user interface should mimick the way we think -- not the way our physical office works. That's the advantage of a computer -- we can make it work better and faster than related physical processes.
The fact that backports.org exists is a clear example of why debian is still relevant, despite the unpopular release phylosophy.
I don't mind using backports.org once in a while. Clearly, there are people who prefer the release schedules of other operating systems. I'm still happy with debian.
One of the things I like most about debian is that it gives me so many choices, that are often much easier to manage than other distros I have tried... It's far from perfect, but I have tried other alternatives recently, and I am still running debian.
I agree, for the most part, but I personally haven't had any trouble mixing a small handful of packages from sarge with a mostly woody-based distro. There aren't that many new features that my servers just can't live without... at least, not until mysql gets its promised upgrades (triggers, stored procedures, etc..). I don't mind the slow pace of debian releases. Woody is still functional and dependable.
I actually think that the slow pace would annoy hobbyists more than server administrators. You have to go outside the woody release to get all the cool new features in Xfree86, KDE, gnome, etc... Debian certainly isn't competing well as a desktop OS.
I stand corrected. /debian folks/GPL folks/
I do like the BSD license better than the GPL, yes, but I don't consider FreeBSD to be a complete OS. My definition of a complete OS is a system that provides everything I need to run webservers (which FreeBSD does just fine) as well as desktop applications (where all un*x's fall short, in my opinion, with the notable exception of OSX). Again, controversial viewpoint on /. ... I'm pragmatic about it though: It's easy to satisfy all of my software needs (but none of my phylosophical ideals) on Windows, and it's easy to satisfy all of my software needs (but few of my ideals) on Macs running OSX.
It's difficult (ranging to completely impractical) to satisfy all of my software needs on linux and other forms of un*x, free or otherwise, even though they're much closer in terms of my philosophical ideals.
As somebody who would still like to get real work done... guess which OS I run for my desktop music and video production needs...
Now, this is a post I can agree with to some extent. However, when I read the text in question, I agreed with the social contract completely. What I don't agree with is the strict definition of free which requires derivative works to be released under the same license. I personally like attribution licenses and/or public domain grants. You might say that the debian folks want to force everybody to subscribe to their form of freedom, whereas I don't care if somebody wants to yank large bits of my code, slap it in their system, and sell it for $1,000. More power to 'em. I realize this is a controversial view in the open-source community. I'd still like to see a complete OS with apps that all use licenses that aren't picky about what they link to, who's making money, or whether or not Microsoft gets to benefit from open-source innovations... I think software should be software, not a legal quagmire.
Sarge does not need to be "released" to be relevant. The software still runs on the debian OS. You can still upgrade your kernel. IMO, the best thing about debian is that you can start with a very minimal linux install and add the packages you need as you need them a lot easier than is possible with many other distributions.
I never said I wanted it to do what the GPL does. And what is wrong with a toothless license? I don't want my software license to have teeth! I want it to be friendly and allow me the freedom to do whatever I want to do with the code.
The GPL is NOT free. It is overly restrictive and annoying -- and I'm an open-source supporter.
"It also takes away the right for a producer of the derivitave work to choose an alternate open-source license for their branch of the code... placing the ideals of the GPL code in a position of higher priority than the ideals of the developer of the derivative work." - me. Did you even read the post?
yeah.. caught the error after I posted. =) Perhaps I should use the "preview" button more...
I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. These awards should be used to recognize important milestones in technological development. Digidesign has not done anything in the last year that could really qualify as an important milestone -- at least, not anything they haven't done before.
The developments that have been literally transforming the industry, lowering the barrier to entry in the movie production field, have been all but ignored by the awards.
Where do the laws on intellectual property use the word "theft" in the context of copyright infringement. Please educate me. - Eric
I am one of the slashdotters who is obsessed over the semantics of the word steal. I also believe we should support content creators who do really cool stuff (John Carmack, for instance). I also would never go into a store and take so much as a candy bar without paying for it. I also do not hesitate to give my music away for free, because I firmly believe that bits and information CANNOT be treated like physical property. The use of unlicensed software is not anything like the theft of physical goods. The idea that it is "stealing" unpaid money is ridiculous in that it assumes that if the product could not be had for free, it certainly would be paid for -- an assumption that anybody with a basic understanding of markets could tell you is utterly false. Cost of aquisition has a serious impact on the number of sales that are made. You obviously do not understand the complexities of the topic. - Eric
That was the case ten years ago. It's not the case today. Pro Tools is still standard in many high end studios, but not the only DAW system present, and often not even the primary DAW system used. In some areas, Pro Tools is still very common -- especially in holywood, but I wasn't talking about holywood, I was talking about the industry as a whole, and in the rest of the world, garage studios, indie production companies, etc.. it is Pro Tools that is the exception. - Eric
SCO has already said a lot of stupid things that they haven't proven. They've already sent notices out to companies who use linux (the first step in the process of suing a user) -- even though they still haven't got a ruling in the IBM case, and proven to anybody anywhere that they have a case at all. All this countdown shows the world is that SCO is consistent about one thing: much adu about nothing. - Eric
The GPL does not protect the world from commercial software. What it does do is make it a lot harder for open-source software to play nice in a world dominated by closed-source software. It also takes away the right for a producer of the derivitave work to choose an alternate open-source license for their branch of the code... placing the ideals of the GPL code in a position of higher priority than the ideals of the developer of the derivative work.
Bill gates would love to force everybody to release software his way.
FSF would love to force everybody to release software its way.
I would love it if both sides would stop treating software like physical property. It isn't. It doesn't work that way. It can't work that way.
Trying to force information to behave like property legally is NOT the answer to our problems. You mention you'd like to see copyright go away. I don't think that's going to happen, realistically, but either way, the GPL relies on copyright law to function.
If the author of a GPL product did not have a copyright, he could not grant the rights he grants, nor could he impose the "you must also GPL derivitave works" clause. The work would be entirely out of his legal control the moment he released it -- a good thing, in my opinion.
The GPL has served a purpose, but I don't think it's the be all and end all of the open source movement, and I still contend that it's hypocritical.
The GPL essentially says, "information wants to be free" -- but then it says, "... but here's what you CAN'T DO with my software."
- EricI have used protools. I think they deserved that recognition in the mid 90's, when they were really doing new and innovative things, but the most of their recent cool developments have happenned in the control equipment, rather than the software itself -- hell, protools on OS X was starting to look like vaporware to many of us, it took them so long to get it working.
In the mean-time, many other companies have done a lot of cool stuff in the audio industry that actually is new and innovative, especially in terms of software and equipment that costs less than $5k.
Most of the really cool innovation has come from the price drops that have made it possible to build an entire movie production studio for less than $20k -- including everything you need to record, mix, and post produce audio, quality cameras, and affordable NLE software.
Where is the mention of that? The garage studio revolution has arrived -- the key products in that revolution should be the ones recieving the awards this year... so where are they?
Okay, digidesign has done some neat things recently, but the most notable are the cool digital control consoles that attach to software-based workstations.
Digi was once widely recognized for building hardware that made mid-90's computers capable of audio feats that would not have been otherwise possible, but these days, there are a lot of other options, and protools is no longer an obvious choice over other software such as cubase sx, which has been very popular among smaller studios.
I suppose the academy is really not very interested in the cool developments that have made it easier for the indie movie scene, such as the terrific, and very affordable Behringer Truth monitors, and small digital mixers that cost less than $2k, but sound better and buss signals easier than the $10k mixers of yester-year.
I really think the coolest technical innovations in the movie and audio community recently have all been the ones that have made it easier to run a small studio out of your garage. I think that movement should be recognized a bit more by the academy.
- EricDo you have a source on that claim? I'm actually interested in learning more about where Microsoft's money comes from. Obviously they do make money on license fees, but is it really "most of their money," is it half? Is it more than half? I think it's a good question. I know they outsource their technical support (which users are charged for), because one of the providers they use is a large employer here (Utah) -- so they may be missing out on some revenue from that... If they do make most of their money from license fees, but the industry average is somewhere around 8% (anybody have different numbers on that?), is it because they're better at extracting license fees (such as, with their notorious hardware deals), or is it because they're missing opportunities in terms of services, support, and solution deals with other large businesses? - Eric
Perhaps it's been a while since you read the GPL. I disagree with it on a philosophical point... the GPL assumes it is software that should be free, and all works based on that software.
I believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with the software they have, purchased, or otherwise. If they want to create a derivitave work and try to sell it, more power to them. Of course, since it's just a closed-source branch of open-source software, the market will take care of making it an uphill battle (who wants to pay for something they can get for free?)
The GPL does not go far enough to ensure freedom for people. It says essentially, "I shared my work, and if you want to use my code, YOU'D BETTER SHARE YOURS!"
Which seems a little bit hypocritical of a movement that claims to place freedom first. The content creator is STILL attempting to assert control over something that should be open to the public. It lends some validation to the idea that information, ideas, intellectual creations are somehow PROPERTY that an OWNER has a right to exert some CONTROL over.
In my opinion, that control is wholely artificial. It takes a lawsuit to enforce that control.
My view is essentially this:
If you can't padlock it or otherwise keep it to yourself, it isn't property. Once you release something into the wild, it's kindof like a kid leaving the nest -- you can offer advice, but you certainly can't ground the kid anymore if they stay out late.
First of all, I don't think that open-source software is really going to stand in the way of making a profit. By some estimates, software licenses account for only 8% of revenues in the software industry.
Second -- why is profit at the top of the list of priorities for this particular initiative? I believe that an open democracy is possible.
I don't believe in forced sharing, but I do believe that we should be allowed to share if we so desire. The wording here seems to suggest that sharing is a significant threat to selling, and that as such, it should be disallowed entirely. I realize that hasn't been said, but it's not a big stretch from his current position... I don't want to see the world start down that slippery slope.