Potentially important real-time on-line discussion

[Benjamin Riefenstahl]

Hi Luciano,


"Luciano ES" <me at privacy.net> writes:
> I think that another big question that strikes many companies is:
> "if I make the source available, what will stop anyone from
> compiling the source themselves and using it for free (illegally)?",

It's only illegal if the author makes it illegal by using a
restrictive license.  If the author doesn't do that, the same activity
("compiling the source themselves") can become "interesting",
"exiting" or "inspiring".  New ideas can even lead to more profit for
the original author.

> or "if I make the source available, what will stop anyone from using
> some of my best ideas and becoming my competitor?"

I think lots of programmers (not to mention their management)
overestimate their own originality by orders of magnitude.  A skilled
programmer should be able to reproduce most software in principle.
Sometimes some (or even a lot) education in the particular software's
domain is needed.  But that education is usually available from public
sources.  Otherwise it's mostly a question of doing the work to
reproduce the effects of the software in question.  Create a
reasonable software model and do a lot of coding and testing.  Work
that could be spared, if the source of the original were available,
but that's all the advantage that the original software has.

Case in point: OpenOffice.  MS Office has an edge over OpenOffice, but
it's most certainly not because of any ideas buried in the code.  It's
that MS office is older, so it's more mature in several aspects.  And
MS has probably spent lots of money on user testing with average
people (as opposed to programmers as users).

Or take my own current pastime: DVD players and multimedia codecs.
Most features have been reproduced by Open Source, even stuff where
the specs are not available.  The problems that Linux has in the
end-user area are caused by licensing restrictions, you have to pay to
license some of the necessary technology.  And you have to submit
other software modules to an approval.  IOW the licenses simply forbid
doing a ready-to-use Open Source version.

> that we live in an ideal world. We do not. Reality is brutal.

That's right.  And living in the real world is easier for me, if I
don't start making life even more complicated, e.g. by inventing
restrictive licenses, licensing schemes and all that.  IMO that's all
just a waste of time.  Part of problem, not of part of any solution
for anybody.


benny