the value of software does not reside in the source code

[Mike Coleman]

Kendric Beachey <ak at kc.rr.com> writes:
> Huh.  Why spend a big chunk of change buying Red Hat the company when you can 
> download Red Hat the software for free, and do about anything you want with 
> it?

IMO:

Contrary to popular opinion, the value of software does not reside in the
source code, mostly.  Most software-producing companies act as if this is so,
and act as if they would suffer a horrible loss if their source code got out,
but this shows a lack of understanding on their part (and possibly ulterior
motives).

Consider the source code of your average vendor.  If you got a copy of it,
even a legal copy, what could you do with it?  Nothing (or very little,
anyway).  The value of the code resides mostly in the ongoing support it
receives from a (hopefully) talented set of programmers/engineers.  This is
one of the fundamental arguments for Open Source (and similarly a benefit for
Free Software).

There *are* good ulterior reasons for keeping source secret.  If, for example,
you're a vendor with really crappy engineering practices, you'd certainly like
to keep that a secret.  Or if your stuff is vapor, you wouldn't want that to
get out.  Or if you're telling your customers that it took you 500 man-years
to produce your ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting, patent-pending software
system, and only about 800 lines are truly useful, you certainly wouldn't want
your customers to know that.  None of these reasons, though, is good for the
customer.

Mike

-- 
Our local university offers a three hour course, College Algebra, which covers
"elementary algebra, solution of equations, functions, exponential and
logarithmic functions, inequalities, systems of linear equations, equations of
second degree and their graphs, binomial theorem, complex numbers, and
polynomials".  They also offer a three hour course which covers Office 2000.
Does this mean that Office is as simple to learn as College Algebra?