Does GPL allow the release, instead of the actual (original) source, an assembly-language version resulting from the disassembly of the compiled binaries?
As long as one can build binaries for the end product via an assembler/compiler and linker, and those "sources", then it constitutes "source code", right?:-)
And since that is "source code" that anybody with the right tools can create, there's really no reason for every commercial company to not release "source" for their products in this manner -- they can then borrow freely from GPL but still abide by it, technically speaking!
What am I missing...
I'd love to do more development with non-vendor-specific tools, but in the software consulting business, the technology framework has often already been chosen by the client.
Open source / free software still has a long way to go. It is gaining popularity, but most shops still buy their software, and for consultants who go in and build new pieces on existing systems, that often means using the pre-existing software infrastructure, especially if the work left behind needs to be understood by maintenance staff who are not conversant with anything but the vendor-specific tools.
On the other hand, I have seen a couple of projects where the client was small and had no software infrastructure to speak of (i.e. 'green field' development.) In those cases, the allure of "free" software made economic sense to the client. If enough of these small companies actually succeed and become big companies, that will increase the penetration of open-source / free software into the corporate world.
p.s. One thing that I dislike about commercial software is the hype companies sometimes try to generate surrounding a deployment of a large system. The buying companies sometimes make news releases that say they have "partnered" or have a "strategic alliance", when really what they should be saying is "we paid through the nose for X" (where X is your favourite system that costs in excess of six or seven figures.)
Slashdot Mirror
Does GPL allow the release, instead of the actual (original) source, an assembly-language version resulting from the disassembly of the compiled binaries? As long as one can build binaries for the end product via an assembler/compiler and linker, and those "sources", then it constitutes "source code", right? :-)
And since that is "source code" that anybody with the right tools can create, there's really no reason for every commercial company to not release "source" for their products in this manner -- they can then borrow freely from GPL but still abide by it, technically speaking!
What am I missing...
I'd love to do more development with non-vendor-specific tools, but in the software consulting business, the technology framework has often already been chosen by the client.
Open source / free software still has a long way to go. It is gaining popularity, but most shops still buy their software, and for consultants who go in and build new pieces on existing systems, that often means using the pre-existing software infrastructure, especially if the work left behind needs to be understood by maintenance staff who are not conversant with anything but the vendor-specific tools.
On the other hand, I have seen a couple of projects where the client was small and had no software infrastructure to speak of (i.e. 'green field' development.) In those cases, the allure of "free" software made economic sense to the client. If enough of these small companies actually succeed and become big companies, that will increase the penetration of open-source / free software into the corporate world.
p.s. One thing that I dislike about commercial software is the hype companies sometimes try to generate surrounding a deployment of a large system. The buying companies sometimes make news releases that say they have "partnered" or have a "strategic alliance", when really what they should be saying is "we paid through the nose for X" (where X is your favourite system that costs in excess of six or seven figures.)