Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 07:43:21AM -0500, Robert Haeckl wrote:
>
> cut
>
> Now of course, you couldn't get SBT source code unless you bought it.
> And SBT only sold the software through dealers, the same ones who made a
> living off code modifications. The SBT license prohibited passing the
> source along to your friends and such.
>
> So this was a case where, even making source available, you could still
> make money. But it's a unique case, since it involved accounting
> software. And it also had the twist that the source code was _licensed_,
> not "Open Source".
>
Maybe I'm using the term "open source" too simply, but perhaps that's
how I feel. I don't take a utilitarian attitude about open source, only
that having the source code would allow businesses, large and small, and
even individual users to control the behavior of the software.
If a software company can include language excluding them from
liability, then buyers should have the ability to dictate how it works
once they buy it. Without source code, your company may be at the mercy
of what the software does or does not do. It's an issue of maintaining
independent determination. So licensing source code would be just as
effective as "open-sourcing", in my book. If your part of a company
that depends heavily on software, I can't imagine why it wouldn't want
to consider buying source rather than binary, although of course there
are many reasons that come into play. As "open source" software
continues to become a more viable option, I think we'll start seeing
more creative ways that traditionally "closed source" software companies
make the source available. I think we're already seeing it.
>
> cut
>
> "Hidden APIs" sounds like you're talking about Microsoft, which is a
> unique situation. They own the OS, and they put in unexposed APIs that
> they take advantage of with their desktop software. Adobe could do the
> same thing with PageMaker or InDesign, making it more difficult for you
> to produce add-ons. But I think that type of thing is seldom encountered
> in the real world. Most software is sold as standalone packages, where
> there are no APIs per se.
>
Again, if your dependent on buying software (e.g. EOM computer makers)
I'd think that you would see the advantage of using or offering an
operating system that the user has full control over. Without source,
you just don't know and can't make that claim.
>
> > I haven't been around computers long enough to remember this, but it
> > fits the issue. And that issue is, "for a large company that already
> > has a significant presence in a software category, is copy protection
> > really the main issue for keeping the source code under lock and key?"
>
> When you say "copy protection" you're really talking about a specific
> thing that is anathema to users everywhere. I'll reach way back into my
> past again for this one. Used to be a spreadsheet called "Lotus 123"
> (yes, the same Lotus as Lotus Notes, which is now owned by IBM). 123
> came on 5-1/4" disks which were "copy-protected". Users hated this
> scheme, and Lotus eventually dropped it, because it caused no end of
> problems and aggravation. That's copy protection. It's the same thing
> they're introducing for CDs and which they've already introduced for
> DVDs. You can't play your US-bought DVD in a French DVD player. Or vice
> versa. People hate this type of thing, and I hope they raise the same
> stink with the studios that users raised with Lotus.
>
> It doesn't sound like you really mean "copy protection". It sounds like
> you are talking about locking up the source.
Your right, I didn't mean that, specifically.
-Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:11:32 EDT