After all, when I buy a car, I cannot make an identical copy and sell it, as the design is protected by copyright. But I am entitled to look inside, and fix it if something's wrong. ".. Would the revealing of source code damage IP rights simply because it is in the open for all to see?
One major difference between writing software and building cars is that not only can any person with the knowledge and time, (no matter old) do it, but that there are many ways to do anything in programming (also its strongest advantage). Source code, if given the change, can and will be reimplemented if that purpose is sought and could quite possibly be totatlly different from the original. There may be only one way to build a BMW but if reimplemented correctly one company could easily use the blueprint as a template to make a better one then claim that is was a sole creation inspired by that design. And who is to truly say whether it's true or not? That said, revealing of source code will obviously damage IP rights because it's open for all to see. One could argue that the fundamental design itself is protected from reimplementation but that would be far too ambiguous to be reasonable and destructable to promoting competition (Amazon rings a bell...).
"Today class, due to some problems concerning IP, we will be learning to write our first program, 'How ya doin' World'"
Look, I'm sorry but my sentimentality is as follows: If you or anyone for that matter doesn't want to be 'inconvenienced' by these messages, pursue writing your own free, fully-featured, open source modules and readily exclude any type of kudos to your sponsors. Then you can distribute it among your fellow freedom fighters who dislike being 'forced' to do things. That way, you can conform to all your own personal standards of what should be done and all your future wading will be through useful non crap only. After all, you *did* contribute much time and expense to your offering, the least you could do is keep it convenient for the seemingly ungrateful critics. Ka-YE say IMHO intended, my apologies for not pre-appending.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, when I buy a car, I cannot make an identical copy and sell it, as the design is protected by copyright. But I am entitled to look inside, and fix it if something's wrong. " .. Would the revealing of source code damage IP rights simply because it is in the open for all to see?
.sig > /dev/null
One major difference between writing software and building cars is that not only can any person with the knowledge and time, (no matter old) do it, but that there are many ways to do anything in programming (also its strongest advantage). Source code, if given the change, can and will be reimplemented if that purpose is sought and could quite possibly be totatlly different from the original. There may be only one way to build a BMW but if reimplemented correctly one company could easily use the blueprint as a template to make a better one then claim that is was a sole creation inspired by that design. And who is to truly say whether it's true or not? That said, revealing of source code will obviously damage IP rights because it's open for all to see. One could argue that the fundamental design itself is protected from reimplementation but that would be far too ambiguous to be reasonable and destructable to promoting competition (Amazon rings a bell...).
"Today class, due to some problems concerning IP, we will be learning to write our first program, 'How ya doin' World'"
Ka-YE@debian# cat
Look, I'm sorry but my sentimentality is as follows: If you or anyone for that matter doesn't want to be 'inconvenienced' by these messages, pursue writing your own free, fully-featured, open source modules and readily exclude any type of kudos to your sponsors. Then you can distribute it among your fellow freedom fighters who dislike being 'forced' to do things. That way, you can conform to all your own personal standards of what should be done and all your future wading will be through useful non crap only. After all, you *did* contribute much time and expense to your offering, the least you could do is keep it convenient for the seemingly ungrateful critics. Ka-YE say IMHO intended, my apologies for not pre-appending.