the value of software does not reside in the source code

[DCT Jared Smith]

Marvin,

In my original response to your words, I clearly and unadversarially
identified your approach as adversarial. Then I said that your 
responses were perfectly valid within the adversarial approach. 

Then I offered another context within which you could consider open 
sourcing your software. In your response, you simply presented another 
litany of adversarial examples. I wish to make it clear that I fully 
understand the words you have written. However, as you continue 
writing with examples that rest upon the premise that competition is 
necessary (when it is not; it is sufficient only), I wish to say that a 
thousand examples of evil competitors, or propositions of distrust 
for your own clients, will not convince me of something I already 
know.

Yes, I know that it's a competitive world out there. 

It is also a cooperative world out there, and I am hoping to
turn your eyes from one to the other without doing so within
the adversarial context. The task may be impossible, yet there
is precedent in the notion, for as Shakespeare wrote:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than 
are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet

What I am writing about boldly is another way of organizing 
information, and I gave you an example of the small joy that 
comes when a person works within the open source paradigm 
for the sheer joy of it, trusting that money will follow true joy.

Sufficient money, that is. If you want more than you need, 
then we are not yet communicating.

I personally am going to go so far as to say that I am deeply 
committed to the Open Source approach IN ALL CASES, for 
I see that Open Source has done to "competition" what 
Einstien's theory of relativity did to Newtonian physics; it did 
not contend; simply rose above, and no one has looked back,
even so far as to legitimately consider non-Euclidean geometries 
as viable...

Now I am aware that the concept of 'raising above competition'
can be perceived as itself competitive, yet what I am saying is
that the adversarial way of organizing your affairs is fully capable
of creating adversaries where there are none. Thus you speak
of hypothetical clients who will betray you, based on evidence
that "they have in the past." I say don't work with such clients.
Find those clients who are loyal. Trust, that you may be trusted.

What I propose is that the best way to find those clients
is to offer your source code, make it freely available to your
friends and enemies alike. Then you will know who your friends
are because they are the ones who continue their relationship
with you as if nothing much changed. THESE are the clients 
who work with you because they respect your ability, not
simply the results of your ability; your software. This is called
loyalty by some.

Rather than cater to clients who "might betray you" simply
give such those things which they would steal--give them
away, with the intent of creating more, not of subsisting on
a single stroke of genius, rather of subsisting on a continual
flow of creativity. Is it possible? It is.

Open Source attracts those programmers who intend to
work very hard for their money. Those programmers who
want to create a single program, and market, market, market,
are attracted to the proprietary model. I, being a programmer
who trusts that I will still be capable of churning out quality
code five years from now, don't care if a thousand people
use my code and don't pay for it--the few who do pay for
it afford me that freedom. And I must do my best to respect
the demands of those who are able to pay me.

It's a principle I'd go hungry to support, and have, in fact,
though the Good Lord has given me a stable job these days,
and someday I may be a good enough programmer that I
don't have to risk going hungry for the principle.

I was delighted to hear that Alan Cox would quit Red Hat
if AOL bought 'em out. That's an inspiration to us wee little
programmers out here.

-Jared

>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.
>
I can see some companies licensing our product for a year or two, then 
ending their contract after gaining some experience.  They would rightly 
or wrongly assume that with the code, they would have everything they'd 
need to support the product on their own.

>
>
>    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.
>
This can, will, and does happen, though!  And, it's not only M$ doing it.  

>
>
>    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.
>
Again, a big company can out-lawyer a smaller company unless there's a 
blatant violation of copyright laws.  The courts have had a difficult 
time with this industry because of its specialized nature.  M$ was found 
guilty of the most aggregious (sp) monopolistic practices, and they'll 
probably walk away with a wrist slap because of the previous two sentences.

>
>
>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.
>
Isn't there GPL'd code in use within Windows?  I remember someone having 
me grep for BSD or some such in a windows file.  It may have been freeware.

>
>
>    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.)
>
Assuming a company is ethical enough to no repackage that code as their 
own.  My point is the ethical standard is too low in the industry.  A 
lot of your points make the assumption that a rogue company will honor a 
license.  I'm saying that history and the current market say they won't.