lindenksv85's comments

There is definitely a set of people for whom reducing poverty is not profitable. Unfortunately in SF you see this coming from a number of non profit affordable housing developers as well as tenants rights advocates who are often the loudest voices opposing adding housing supply and even fighting legislation for density bonuses for developments that include a high percentage of affordable housing. It took me a really long time to understand that actually fixing the housing problem inSF would mean that they lose a ton of government grants and that the executives of these orgs who often make over 200k would all lose their jobs. So it's not just in the private market- it's definitely the non profit sector too.

I think that such a provision would be even more unpalatable to the business world than copy left provisions that risk the user having to release their product under the same OSS license. I don't see any proprietary software company ever using anything like this in their code base.ehy would you do this and leave yourself open to suits from the likes of oracle and Microsoft? So long as they have their Arsenal of patents, you need yours, regardless of home much you hate software patents.

The second provision isn't just unpalatable, it's dead in the water. Lots of SaaS companies host anything and everything without knowing what they host - think Dropbox. Even if they wanted to comply with this provision it would require someone poring over everything submitted by a customer and making the determination of whether or not a patent might apply isn't a determination even an army of lawyers could confidently make.mforther with more and more companies getting encrypted data from customers, this is even more impossible to comply with.