Thank you so much for your kind and courteous explanation. But I have been in this business a long time and if what you say about the posture of open-software is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, so I accept it, then the fact is that open software and open hardware have been around for as long as I can remember. I used to teach electronics design at a community college and I gave my students a good deal of what I developed so that they could use it, learn from it and profit from it. I had already profited from it myself. I am always ready to help new engineers and technicians solve problems or get projects up and running. I have never even considered compensation: it is a gift. I have been doing this for years, only I never referred to it as open anything. That being the case, and I admit that I came in late on this thread, I fail to see why it would be controversial. I read the SCO letter and it made a great deal of sense to me because I do not believe that anyone should be compelled to open their software (technology). I am a staunch advocate of individual rights and copyright protection as well as patent protection. I have some designs that I will not patent because that will put them in the public domain where others may be able to discover the basis of invention. I once was asked by Singer, et al to design a better autofocus that Kodak's. It was easy. I pulled their patents and decided to go a different route that would surpass the Kodak design. But that does not suggest that patent laws should be abrogated because a trade secret is viable. If I am to understand you, the controversy is that ones right to publish freely without consequence is being infringed upon. If someone steals the source code from someone else and publishes it at large, I see that as infringement and I cannot see any way to justify it. According to the SCO letter, that is a salient part of their argument. Some significant pat of their source code was usurped. I do not know if this is a fact. But I am persuaded that protection against such theft is warranted. I appreciate your clarification, that open-software means anyone can give away their work without fear of being impugned or maligned. But I wonder why that should even be a question when it has been a practice since I was a new physicist with a small company in Silicon Valley. I have been laboring under the assumption, based upon what others have represented as their view, that all software should be "open." I can only conclude that there is room for clarification on both sides of the issue because some are indeed advocating that legal protection of software rights be removed that it is a compelling force. As you have stated, however, these must be the extremists, or fringe elements of the idea. I wish to be sure that you accept my sincere thanks for taking the time to explain some things that I have misunderstood, and clarifying some thing which I have understood. I will continue to research the broader context of the notion. Regards, Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Jay Newman" To: Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 9:13 PM Subject: Re: SCO lobbying Congress about Linux > > 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. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.