Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Scott Moore Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 12:39 pm Gerry Quinn wrote On 09/29/05 01:42,: > In article , willem@stack.nl > says... > >>Gerry wrote: >>) But yes, by your standards it's better for the buyer if the vendor is a >>) fool who gives his product away even though it harms him. So long as >>) the vendor or another fool like him is still in business, of course. >>) If that's no longer the case, the buyer loses too. >> >>Why does 'Open Source' equate to 'Giving away software' ? >> >>In any case, you're stating it as an extreme case, as if the benefits >>of enticing buyers by providing the source could never ever outweigh >>the harm it does the vendor. > > > I'm just pointing out the issues that you are not considering when you > say that having the source is unequivocally better. Of course some > vendors do release source without going out of business. It depends a > lot on circumstances. Providers of development tools and libraries can > often do that. > > >>It's not black/white anyway, a vendor could, for example, provide a >>contract whereby he commits to giving his customers the source code >>of a product when he stops providing support for that product. > > > Yes, in many cases that could be a reasonable way to assuage the fears > of customers without releasing source. > > OTOH, the IT industry is evolving fast, and yesterday's software is > often just... yesterday's software. > > - Gerry Quinn > Its a complete canard in any case. To use Red Hat's own example, "would you buy a car with the hood welded shut", car makers provide service information, allow third party parts to be sold, but DON'T provide all the engineering documents and drawings used to make the car, nor are they needed. People use cars and get them serviced by other than factory dealers, use non-dealer supplied parts, or do all the work themselves without that information. A software maker is under no responsibility to provide customers with the complete means to make the software from scratch. If the software is so buggy and their customer service so bad that a customer doesn't feel safe unless they have the source, then the software and/or the company that supplies it is CRAP and should be dumped immediately. The OTHER way to be "open" is what existed before open source became popular, which is open as in open interfaces and specifications. For instance, a compiler and linker system can have its intermediate, linker and perhaps executable formats documented, so that if the toolset becomes popular, third party makers can add tools to it, or even replace peices of it if the original maker indeed does lose the ability to support it. Open source certainly has its place, and its an alternative method to distribute software, but that does not make proprietary software inherently bad. No other product has this requirement to ship all of the engineering documents used to make it. Imagine getting a washing machine with a thick folder documenting parts, diagrams, the dies used to make the parts, etc. This information is useful to no one except another manufacturer. .