> But isn't it a good thing to protect individual rights and intellectual
> property?  I don't know if you are also one of those who support the

Yes, it is good to protect individual rights. This includes the right to
give one's work freely to others. In no way does the GPL violate that
concept. If you don't want to release a work under the GPL, then don't
include code in your work that was GPL'ed. It isn't as if there isn't
copious README files explaining this.

> abrogation of patent laws as well.  There is some interest in that scenario.

Well, I don't think that the patent laws help the "national good" any more,
but that's another story. They're still better for some things than not
having patents.

> I am certainly not accusing.  But I wonder what motive people have in
> preventing others from electing to enjoy the fruits of their labor and
> protection from others who would usurp the benefit of that labor without
> fair compensation.  I wonder if those who support the abrogation of software

Only a few extremists in the open source community would demand that *all*
software be open. There are advantages in hving all software be open,
but each to his own.

> I cannot see how a software engineer would elect to work for the "benefit of
> others, without compensation."  What is it that I am missing in this
> scenario?

I have released (and am still in the process of releasing) a Java robotics
framework. I don't want to be bothered trying to sell it and somebody might
get some use out of it. Why should I prevent them? Yes, I'm doing this
mainly for myself, but I have included some parts mainly for others.

> Should the military be compelled by the open-software scheme?  I wonder what
> would the purpose of a defenseless military would be.  Has anyone taken the

Why do you make the assumption that open-source software is less secure
than closed-source software? It seems that fixes come more quickly to
Linux (open-source) than to Windows (closed-source).

Also, the open-source community admits to and fixes problems more rapidly
than most close-source sources.

> time to think this thing through? Or can it be that I am missing something
> very fundamental, because as far as I know, software engineering and the
> security thereof is germane to the function of this PICLIST and certainly
> the support of many who participate on the list.

Yes, and there are many ways to make money from software. One can make
money from open-source software though various means.

> I have certain proprietary software and hardware as well.  I am certainly
> not interested in sharing my hardware and software designs, nor my
> algorithms with my competitors.

Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to. SCO is *claiming* that the open-source
comminity wants this. The technical term for this is a "lie". SCO does
that.

However, there are advantages to sharing. Sometimes some peer consultation
can help. I would not be where I am today without the contributions of
others. By releasing some software open-source, and by writing articles,
I feel I am giving back to those who helped me get started. Other people
will do the same in the future.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jay@sprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.