Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> You are assuming someone is taking the source illegally to make a new
>> product.  I was only talking about using the product illegally.  Let's
>> say the Windows XP source code was available.  Somebody would find the
>> runtime license manager, remove it, build a new version, and pass it
>> around.  Large companies and a few honest people would continue to pay
>> a license for the real thing, but many many people would run the free
>> bootleg copy.
>
> That's exactly what is happening /now/ with closed source software. I
> don't see a big advantage regarding this in closed source.

But open source would make this substantially easier.  Certainly the number
of people that would have the skills to crack open source is much greater
than those that know how to crack (and are willing to spend the significant
effort it takes) executable binaries.

In any case, open or closed source is and should continue to be a decision
of the intellectual property owner.  I get really irked when I hear modern
day hippies telling others what they should do with their self-created
property.  I'm not necessarily against open source, only people telling me
that all source should be open.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist