Xiaofan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] OSS (was: USB Resources.)' on Sat, Dec 17 at 02:07: > On 12/17/05, Danny Sauer wrote: > > > I am talking about small software vendors. To earn money by > support, the software needs to be quite complicated (Linux is > very complicated, even only the USB subsystem from my read > of linux-usb list). If the software is sufficiently complicated to pay for rather than developing in-house, then it's sufficiently compliacted to justify support. Note that upgrades and modifications are also "support", not just help desk use. > > Basically, distributing in binary only form is just barely above the > > idea of security through obscurity. It works to prevent the lazy from > > doing anything, > > Not the lazy but people who respect the law. If everyone respects the law, including copyright and whatever license is placed on source code, then how does making source available damage the developer? Say the license prohibits redistribution of any changes made, and requires payment for commercial use. How is that any worse than binary distribution? As far as I can tell, the only difference in that case is that people are locked in to the original vendor if they need any kind of support (upgrades, etc). The bigger reason for binary distribution, IMHO, is to prevent piracy and ensure future support revenue. If you don't believe support matters, then piracy is the only reason, and presuming that your customers are pirates is not a real good way to do business. :) --Danny -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist