“Anti-piracy technologies is to the benefit of the game publishers, [but also] is of benefit to the players in that it protects the [publisher’s] investment and it means the publishers can then invest in the next game”

The only entity benefiting in this scenario is Denuvo, while the client clutches their pearls to protect a misguided concept of the elusive lost sale. Denuvo rakes in cash in the name of copy protection, but the truth is most acts of piracy are driven by a lack of means to obtain the product or a desire to demo the product.

Sure it’s their right to protect it but I don’t think there’s any accurate way to actually measure the impact of games with and without such aggressive copy protection.

Whole-heartedly agree on the quote and it stuck out to me even before coming to the comments here. Redhat might not like that people are repacking “their” software, but the spirit of GPL software is that you can charge for it but folks can also go through the trouble of building it themselves should they not want to go that route and are able to support/debug/maintain the software themselves on their own hardware.

If they don’t think the clauses of GPL are fair, then they should probably stop distributing Linux entirely because their entire business model is founded off of profiting off the work of other open source contributions.

Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere.

One could argue Redhat already does this on packages they have not improved or submitted contributions for.

They also learned nothing from a previous experience where the sub lost contact and got lost for hours. There were discussions of adding a beacon to the sub but that clearly never happened.

I guess the CEO never expected cutting corners would directly affect his life.