the value of software does not reside in the source code

[Marvin Bellamy]

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.

Mike Coleman wrote:

>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
>