the value of software does not reside in the source code

[Ray Hanes]

Well you make a good arguement. But the simple fact that linux exists and
many others are building thier own addons kind of shoots the arguement down.

Unless I'm missing part of the conversation here. Which is possible since I
just kind of jumped in here.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Coleman" <mkc+dated+1012517714.144b15 at mathdogs.com>
To: "Marvin Bellamy" <Marvin.Bellamy at innovision.com>
Cc: "Kclug" <kclug at kclug.org>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: the value of software does not reside in the source code

> Marvin Bellamy <Marvin.Bellamy at innovision.com> writes:
> > I disagree with you, here...then I'm not totally sold on the open source
> > movement.  I work for a small company with a niche market.  If our code
was
> > open source, it'd be damned easy for others to encroach on our turf. I
don't
> > think you can assume honesty on the part of other companies. Look at M$.
If
> > they have the opportunity, they'll steal code and attrit the little guy
with
> > litigation.
>
> Though I mention Open Source in my post, that wouldn't be my first choice
in
> most situations.  Consider a few options short of OS, more or less in
order of
> decreasing restrictiveness:
>
> 1.  Release source with license only allowing users to read it.  No
>     compilation, alteration, redistribution.  I think most vendors would
have
>     a fit about even this sort of disclosure, but in reality source code
>     encumbered this way would be very unlikely to result in customers not
>     buying your product or competitors somehow capitalizing.  What's your
>     customer going to do?  Copy it and start supporting it themselves?
Dumb,
>     very dumb.
>
>     What's your competitor going to do?  Illegally include it in their
code?
>     Anyone that's been programming for a while has run into situations
where
>     some customer or manager has dropped a huge hairy undocumented ball of
>     code on them gotten from elsewhere (meaning that the original authors
are
>     gone, dead, incompetent or otherwise unhelpful).  As a programmer,
just
>     reading that should make you cringe--the last thing you want to do is
>     start development on that codebase.  You might be able to reverse
engineer
>     a few bits of useful info about some API or hardware interface, but
beyond
>     that, send it to the dumpster.
>
>     In some ways it's worse than useless.  If you read such code, you risk
>     being sued in the future, whether you copy from it or not.
>
> 2.  Release source under the GPL.  Some of the above applies to this
>     alternative as well.  It's one thing to have the source; it's another
>     entirely to command the attention of talented programmers that
designed
>     and implemented it.  The GPL does give customers the alternative to
choose
>     other support, but if you're treating them at all reasonably, they'd
be
>     fools to do so.
>
>     And as for your competitors?  Sure, they could develop with your
codebase,
>     but that's arguably good for you.  First, you get to sell the results
of
>     their efforts.  And second, their customers see that the product
they're
>     selling was originally developed by *you*.  Most competitors are
unlikely
>     to choose this path even if it would be a net benefit for them, and
>     rapacious, monopolistic competitors never will.
>
>     (Generally speaking I'd stop here.  I think Open Source licenses are
>     mostly useful for specific tactical situations.)
>
> That's all just opinion, but I'm not aware of any real-world
counterexamples.
>
> Mike
>
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com