1. Closed-source projects are often have a more structured process for development, along the lines of CMM, ISO 9001, established methodologies, etc. Things like CMM and ISO 9001 are assumed to result in higher quality (I seriously dispute that, but its the widely held assumption).
2. Many closed-source projects have customers with support contracts. Many open-source developers are not bound by such contracts and are not forced to fix bugs. It is assumed that suppliers with contracts to fix bugs will fix bugs (see Microsoft to see if that is a good assumption).
3. The quality of closed-source programmers is assumed to be higher. That is because the stereotype of the open source person is someone in college, unemployed, or in some other way with too much time on their hands. The sterotype of the closed-source (ie, corporate) programmer is that they went through a rigorous review and selection process to qualify to work on the project (that is assumed by people who have never worked in corporate IT).
Re:For crying out loud
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If I were SCO and I had an actual case I would not reveal the code for fear of evidence tampering.
As an analogy, lets say that the police are going after a drug dealer. They don't make public who the dealer is and where they think he is hiding his drugs. If they do that, he moves or destroys his drugs. Destroying the drugs means the police no longer have a case, but that does not mean that he, in fact, still committed a crime (just impossible to prove now).
The other reason that evidence could be kept secret is to stop "trail by public" instead of "trail by court of law". In the Petterson case, for instance, the Judge has said that he wants the facts vetted in the court, not the media.
SCO could turn your question around and say "if you are so sure that there is no code in Linux that should not be there due to copyright, why are you so worried to see our evidence? Don't worry, you will be vindicated in court when we don't prove our case."
A few bad apples?
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Do a few bad apples spoil the bunch?
Assume for a second that some copyrighted Unix source code is in Linux (I find this plausable). Also assume that copyright protection is necessary for lots of innovation (I also find this plausable, and most economists agree). And, anyway, assume that we are society based on laws, and those laws must be enforced for the greater good.
Is Linux now "tainted"? What happens if they find and remove all the offending code, is that good enough? What if a steal a car and then return it, does it negate the crime? I am in the software industry, and I can tell you, if someone steals software, simply removing it later does not end their libility.
On the other hand, just because a few wanna-bee coders couldn't figure out how to write something themselves and copied it from somewhere else, should we declare the work of the vast majority of Linux contributers to be tainted? (I am assuming that the vast majority of Linux code is an original work, which I believe it is, but, of course, who knows until it all comes out). It would seem unfare to allow the bad actions of a few to kill the work of hundreds, but it also seems unfair to let theft go unpunished.
I don't know the answer. This seems like one of those ethical situations where both sides are right (except the third side, the theives, but I think most agree they are in the wrong). This will all probably come down to some legal technicality or out-of-court settlement, but I think the ethical question is interesting.
Yes, the RIAA wants people to buy bad music. Yes, many people who download music did not plan on buying it. Yes, music is too expensive. Yes, people want music to be cheaper.
So what?
The record labels have certain legal rights. If they want to charge a lot of money for bad music, that is their right. It is our right to not buy it. It is not our right to steal it. At least we are not in France where the government funnels tax money to the entertainment industry (in the form of subsitities and there nonsense WTO "cultural exclusion").
What if the government quit allowing you to post using the defense "no one who cares would have read it anyway." Would your rights be violated? Of course, you have a right to free speech. The RIAA has a right to protect its copyrights.
Thats easy. Vote with your feet. D/l'ing their music only helps them (market share coverage, press coverage, etc).
Stop buying CDs. Don't download their songs. Don't listen to radio stations playing labels represented by the RIAA (drives down adversiting revenue). Whatever problems people have with American Capitalism, it is blindingly efficient.
If they have no revenue (through no license revenue, adversiting revenue, lawsuit settlements, etc), they quit existing (ie, "destroyed") in short order.
So there is some sort of moral equivalence in demanding cival rights, right to vote and ending a war with "I just GOTTA have the latest Britney Spears album".
In your examples of widespread civil disobedience, people were getting harmed by the law (being enslaved, denied representation, and slaughtered in a jungle, respectivly). I fail to see how anyone suffers from not have a No Doubt song (hell, No Doubt is in my long list of "bands" that I would consider it a reward to never have their music distributed by anyone for any reason... pay or no).
Some people seem to be getting caught up in the technicalities of copyright law or simply not taking the law that seriously (a saw a post where someone said "the small matter or breaking the copyright"). In the US (where the RIAA is pursuing enforcement), the society is based on the acceptance of the code of laws. If I don't like the seatbelt law, I don't get to take my seatbelt off in protest and expect no repercussions; I have to work through the system to change the law.
People are talking about "sending vs receiving of files", "misnamed files", "selective prosecution", "what about used books", etc, etc, but seem to be missing the basic point: someone went through time, effort and expense to create a work and then protected it under our copyright system. Others disregarded this protection afforded by the law.
There is no moral argument to make in defense. If someone were starving to death and broke into a store to steal food, there is a moral defense around survival. No one needs the latest Britney Spears song in order to survive. It will not cure disease. It will not stop war. It is simply not a need and doesn't appear anywhere in a needs hierarchy; it is a desire. We don't get to disregard laws to feed our desires. If some technicality allows that, the technicality should be fixed.
My last point is about this idea of no one getting hurt because the downloader wouldn't have purchased the song anyway. It is completly irrelevant whether or not the person would have purchased the song. The copyright holder has certain rights, and they cannot simply be disregarded. What if the government started censoring my posts under the excuse "they are so poorly worded and long winded, no one would have read them anyway"? Whether or not they would have been read is not the point, I have a right to free speech. A copyright holder has rights. If you don't like the way they handle those rights, vote with your feet, don't listen to their music, watch their movies, use the software, or whatever.
In a civilized soceity, we don't get to pick and choose the laws we obey based on convienence or desire. You don't get to throw others' rights away because they don't suit you.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be suprising for a number of reasons:
1. Closed-source projects are often have a more structured process for development, along the lines of CMM, ISO 9001, established methodologies, etc. Things like CMM and ISO 9001 are assumed to result in higher quality (I seriously dispute that, but its the widely held assumption).
2. Many closed-source projects have customers with support contracts. Many open-source developers are not bound by such contracts and are not forced to fix bugs. It is assumed that suppliers with contracts to fix bugs will fix bugs (see Microsoft to see if that is a good assumption).
3. The quality of closed-source programmers is assumed to be higher. That is because the stereotype of the open source person is someone in college, unemployed, or in some other way with too much time on their hands. The sterotype of the closed-source (ie, corporate) programmer is that they went through a rigorous review and selection process to qualify to work on the project (that is assumed by people who have never worked in corporate IT).
If I were SCO and I had an actual case I would not reveal the code for fear of evidence tampering.
As an analogy, lets say that the police are going after a drug dealer. They don't make public who the dealer is and where they think he is hiding his drugs. If they do that, he moves or destroys his drugs. Destroying the drugs means the police no longer have a case, but that does not mean that he, in fact, still committed a crime (just impossible to prove now).
The other reason that evidence could be kept secret is to stop "trail by public" instead of "trail by court of law". In the Petterson case, for instance, the Judge has said that he wants the facts vetted in the court, not the media.
SCO could turn your question around and say "if you are so sure that there is no code in Linux that should not be there due to copyright, why are you so worried to see our evidence? Don't worry, you will be vindicated in court when we don't prove our case."
Do a few bad apples spoil the bunch?
Assume for a second that some copyrighted Unix source code is in Linux (I find this plausable). Also assume that copyright protection is necessary for lots of innovation (I also find this plausable, and most economists agree). And, anyway, assume that we are society based on laws, and those laws must be enforced for the greater good.
Is Linux now "tainted"? What happens if they find and remove all the offending code, is that good enough? What if a steal a car and then return it, does it negate the crime? I am in the software industry, and I can tell you, if someone steals software, simply removing it later does not end their libility.
On the other hand, just because a few wanna-bee coders couldn't figure out how to write something themselves and copied it from somewhere else, should we declare the work of the vast majority of Linux contributers to be tainted? (I am assuming that the vast majority of Linux code is an original work, which I believe it is, but, of course, who knows until it all comes out). It would seem unfare to allow the bad actions of a few to kill the work of hundreds, but it also seems unfair to let theft go unpunished.
I don't know the answer. This seems like one of those ethical situations where both sides are right (except the third side, the theives, but I think most agree they are in the wrong). This will all probably come down to some legal technicality or out-of-court settlement, but I think the ethical question is interesting.
So what?
The record labels have certain legal rights. If they want to charge a lot of money for bad music, that is their right. It is our right to not buy it. It is not our right to steal it. At least we are not in France where the government funnels tax money to the entertainment industry (in the form of subsitities and there nonsense WTO "cultural exclusion").
What if the government quit allowing you to post using the defense "no one who cares would have read it anyway." Would your rights be violated? Of course, you have a right to free speech. The RIAA has a right to protect its copyrights.
Vote with your feet!
Thats easy. Vote with your feet. D/l'ing their music only helps them (market share coverage, press coverage, etc).
Stop buying CDs. Don't download their songs. Don't listen to radio stations playing labels represented by the RIAA (drives down adversiting revenue). Whatever problems people have with American Capitalism, it is blindingly efficient.
If they have no revenue (through no license revenue, adversiting revenue, lawsuit settlements, etc), they quit existing (ie, "destroyed") in short order.
In your examples of widespread civil disobedience, people were getting harmed by the law (being enslaved, denied representation, and slaughtered in a jungle, respectivly). I fail to see how anyone suffers from not have a No Doubt song (hell, No Doubt is in my long list of "bands" that I would consider it a reward to never have their music distributed by anyone for any reason... pay or no).
Some people seem to be getting caught up in the technicalities of copyright law or simply not taking the law that seriously (a saw a post where someone said "the small matter or breaking the copyright"). In the US (where the RIAA is pursuing enforcement), the society is based on the acceptance of the code of laws. If I don't like the seatbelt law, I don't get to take my seatbelt off in protest and expect no repercussions; I have to work through the system to change the law. People are talking about "sending vs receiving of files", "misnamed files", "selective prosecution", "what about used books", etc, etc, but seem to be missing the basic point: someone went through time, effort and expense to create a work and then protected it under our copyright system. Others disregarded this protection afforded by the law. There is no moral argument to make in defense. If someone were starving to death and broke into a store to steal food, there is a moral defense around survival. No one needs the latest Britney Spears song in order to survive. It will not cure disease. It will not stop war. It is simply not a need and doesn't appear anywhere in a needs hierarchy; it is a desire. We don't get to disregard laws to feed our desires. If some technicality allows that, the technicality should be fixed. My last point is about this idea of no one getting hurt because the downloader wouldn't have purchased the song anyway. It is completly irrelevant whether or not the person would have purchased the song. The copyright holder has certain rights, and they cannot simply be disregarded. What if the government started censoring my posts under the excuse "they are so poorly worded and long winded, no one would have read them anyway"? Whether or not they would have been read is not the point, I have a right to free speech. A copyright holder has rights. If you don't like the way they handle those rights, vote with your feet, don't listen to their music, watch their movies, use the software, or whatever. In a civilized soceity, we don't get to pick and choose the laws we obey based on convienence or desire. You don't get to throw others' rights away because they don't suit you.