the value of software does not reside in the source code

[Marvin Bellamy]

I hate getting so off-topic, but this has been something I've had in 
mind ever since I started working with open-source code at home. 
 In-line comments...

Mike Coleman wrote:

>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.