The place of open-source (was: How to protect python code ?)

[Cameron Laird]

In article <5ppka.23067$It5.15751 at news2.central.cox.net>,
Steve Holden <sholden at holdenweb.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Of course, the businesses that make a good living out of proprietary
>software encourage all sorts of FUD about open source. Consequently, large
>organizations implement rules forbidding the use of open source software
>products because "they aren't supported" when in fact the support for some
>open source products is actually superior to that of most proprietary
>products.
>
>The fact of the matter is that most companies would prefer to pay for a
>black-box proprietary product because ultimately there's assumed to be a
>responsible (and accountable) organization behind it. If they bothered to
>read the licenses, of course, they'd realize that the producer's liability
>is usually limited to the purchase price of the software.
			.
			.
			.
There certainly are policies in place that prevent
or make difficult use of some or all open-source
products.  The proximate reasons for those policies
are, as Steve knows, more varied than simply, "they
aren't supported", and they originate in more than
just FUD.

I make a point of this because I think it's important
to realize that rational use of open source will 
involve more than simply FUD battles.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://phaseit.net/claird/home.html