To clarify you're saying that you are ok with someone selling your software?
Or any company could make a closed source distribution of linux?
Or any company could make a closed source distribution of linux?
To answer your second question, most individual users of Linux use it for the openness, not the zero cost. I'd imagine businesses do not care so much about openness, though mine is extremely paranoid against using closed source.
Yes. I contribute to and create software with licences that permit it.
In a world with copyright I prefer GPL-type licenses, in a world without copyright everything would be MIT-like.
A legal requirement to attribute might be nice but I don't really care. I think that the legal system should deal with matters of importance, not social politeness.
> Or any company could make a closed source distribution of linux?
Sure. They wouldn't be able to prevent anyone from copying it.
Ultimately I can't really see a viable business model for it that doesn't already exist - e.g. Android is already essentially closed source, partly due to a bunch of binary blobs and partly due to all of the infrastructure built up around the platform.
If you want to apply a license to something there has to be something to license.
It's unclear to me what point you're making here.
In a world without copyright all software would be usable in the same way MIT software is now, except there'd be no attribution requirement.
I specifically mentioned that in my post.
Everything would be public domain.