Desktop
What is the general consensus of people...
Do you think that there is adequate protection given to computer programmes, or do you think that protection should be dispensed with in favour of open source software?
What do you mean by "adequate protection"?
What do you want them protected from? Misuse? Hacking? Copyright abuse? Malware?
by dawgit
The code is a lot of effort, but it's what the code does that matters.
On of us could sit down and write an app with the same functionality as an existing one, and from a code point of view it would look completely different. It's the story that matters not the language it's written in.
I mean what are you saying, that without peeking under the covers an other programmer couldn't come up with a sort algorithm ?
by shaun.g
GPL still gives you that, so saying going open source instead of 'protection' is misleading.
There are a lot of very good programmers about, who could program just about anything, figuring out where to exert their talent is a completely different thing.
It's the difference between operating system and windows, or Doom and a computer game.
You could write Doom in a different language for different platform with different algorithms. When I played it though, I'd say this is Doom.
So why would it being open source make a difference?
Let's look at the first part of your question before we consider the second half.
"Do you think that there is adequate protection given to computer programmes, ..."
If the answer to this is "Yes, there is adequate copyright protection", then the second part is irrelevant.
If the answer is "No, there is not adequate copyright protection", then the second part comes into play.
"... do you think that protection should be dispensed with ..."
So if there isn't adequate protection, let's do away with protection entirely? If the brakes don't stop my car, let's take them out?
Now your last phrase.
"...in favour of open source software?"
You only present one "option" as the solution to inadequate copyright protection. First, there are multiple solutions to any problem. Second, open source software is usually released under some form of licensed protection defining it's use. It is NOT a dispensation of legal protections. The terms and conditions are different from those commonly used by closed source licenses, but they exist.
Open source is not abandoning of legal protection. Even if it was, abandoning copyright protection is not the only solution
to the problem. The form of legal or copyright protection applied to software release is the choice of the developer, not the customer. If the customer doesn't like it, he doesn't have to use the software. If he uses the software, he agrees to abide by the terms.
by shaun.g
The comparison:
"So if there isn't adequate protection, let's do away with protection entirely? If the brakes don't stop my car, let's take them out?"
Its fairle basic, but it is a good one, thank you. I did not see it that way.
I wish to state that I am not trying to prove or disprove anything, I am seeking the views of those who work with software everyday and have licensing issues to deal with...
I confess that I do not understand the GNU, GPL, open source software licensing or copyright issues... I am trying to understand copyright issues surrounding it.
I was under the impression that the IT world would prefer open source, as it allows more input, and perhaps even quicker solutions to flaws or 'bugs' in software. I am most likely wrong, if I am just let me know.
"I was under the impression that the IT world would prefer open source, as it allows more input, and perhaps even quicker solutions to flaws or 'bugs' in software."
The preference often depends on which side of the economic equation you're on.
Many customers would prefer open source software so they could modify the code to suit their needs without having to work with the vendor / developer. Some customers don't care since they don't have personnel with the skills to make changes or are happy using the program in it's original configuration.
Many developers prefer closed source or proprietary code. Their business plan is based on software sales, and having the code freely available reduces their potential sales. Others work of a model of supplying the product at a minimal cost to the customer, and then making money from supporting the product.
Quicker solutions assumes someone is interested in working on the bug. The more users an open source application has, the more likely someone will be both interested in fixing the problem and have the skills to do it. If no one is interested in fixing the problem, developing the patch or solution may take a while.
Me? I don't care one way or the other as long as the application works. In my job, I want the applications we use at work to have a structured support system. This includes the developer having telephone support and a system to track problems, assign responsibility for fixing them, and a method of estimating when the problems will be solved. I don't care if the product is open or closed since I haven't done any heavy-duty programming in over a decade, and that was in COBOL and FORTRAN. I couldn't program "Hello World" in any current language without a "Dummies" book.
by shaun.g
I think that to write software is a talent... there have been things at times I wanted to do but I just do not have the tenacity to sit there and workout coding.
I could locate the bugs, and work on the service deask (which I did some years ago) but no more, I just want things to work, I am not interested in looking for or solving bugs.
I think that there is not adequate protection in place... the real question, I think, is more if it is assumed that there is adequate protection in place, but that there are not enough enforcement mechanisms and or agents in place, to enforce it, then does that render the protection inadequate?
Further, according to BSA-IDC UK has a piracy raete of 27%, one of the lowest but has 1.802 million USD worth of pirated goods, according to the same report. The highest piracy rate is Vietnam, while USA has the 6000+ million expenditure on piracy.
So does this show afdequate controls? I dont know... I am still reading up yet.
Copyright is a legal protection. Anti-piracy measures are mechanisms built in to the software. Whether the source is available or not, is a moot point.
Any copy protection mechanism can be broken, generally the harder they are to break, they are more complex , they have greater impact on deployment and they cost more to implement.
That's why shareware usually has something as easily defeated as a registry key, viciously expensive niche applications go to things like hardware dongles.
You pick a solution based on a cost benefit analysis.
http://www.opensource.org is a good start if you want to find out about Open Source licensing.
The GPL was a thing of beauty.
The anti open source types were gnashing their teeth, when it used copyright law to open the source. :D
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending