Integration leads to less complexity, allowing us to tackle more complex concepts. Yeah, we're hackers and we enjoy getting our hands dirty, but we stop messing with the details at some point, be it at the source code level, the bit level, the hardware CPU level, the transistor level, or lower.
You're almost suggesting that we do away with capitalism altogether...
While testing is good in general, some of the testing that could be done takes an extremely long time to do and may not be worth it. It's up to the consumers to figure out how much is necessary by voting with their money.
It just might take them some time to realize that just because, on the surface, a program works well, that it could have other downsides that aren't immediately obvious. The open source and peer review aspects will certainly help in this area.
As has already been suggested, make a new contract with the same person or someone else.
In many cases, the projects on CoSource will be ones of interest to more than one party: Several companies want a product to be created, and get a developer to create it. Later, a different company who has begun to use the program needs a new feature or a bug fix. So maintenance and development could be separated, and in this case, is already separated.
the recent disposition of a EEUU tribunal declaring software as a language and thus protected by the free speech amend of the constitution takes down avery other legal argument.
The court ruling didn't say that source code/software is free to be copied by anyone and everyone. It only said that source code can't be prevented from export if the legal owners want it to be exported.
Slashdot Mirror
Integration leads to less complexity, allowing us to tackle more complex concepts. Yeah, we're hackers and we enjoy getting our hands dirty, but we stop messing with the details at some point, be it at the source code level, the bit level, the hardware CPU level, the transistor level, or lower.
While testing is good in general, some of the testing that could be done takes an extremely long time to do and may not be worth it. It's up to the consumers to figure out how much is necessary by voting with their money.
It just might take them some time to realize that just because, on the surface, a program works well, that it could have other downsides that aren't immediately obvious. The open source and peer review aspects will certainly help in this area.
As has already been suggested, make a new contract with the same person or someone else.
In many cases, the projects on CoSource will be ones of interest to more than one party: Several companies want a product to be created, and get a developer to create it. Later, a different company who has begun to use the program needs a new feature or a bug fix. So maintenance and development could be separated, and in this case, is already separated.
the recent disposition of a EEUU tribunal declaring software as a language and thus protected by the free speech amend of the constitution takes down avery other legal argument.
The court ruling didn't say that source code/software is free to be copied by anyone and everyone. It only said that source code can't be prevented from export if the legal owners want it to be exported.