I say it is spinach . . .
Gerhard Fiedler email (remove spam text)
Olin Lathrop wrote:
That's exactly what is happening /now/ with closed source software. I don't
see a big advantage regarding this in closed source.
>> Open source is actually the only way to enforce software copyright.
> Only if you can enforce that the source of every executable is available
> somehow. Clearly if I'm going to make a bootleg copy of an app I want to
> run for free, I'm not going to post the cracked code on my web page. If
> I've got a compiler and know how to use it, there is really nothing you can
> do to stop me since it's nearly impossible to detect.
The only thing that can be used to detect whether the license you're
running is a legal one is your proof of purchase. That's not different now
with closed source software. Want a bootleg of Microsoft Office? Of
AutoCAD? Of Photoshop? All closed source, but all out there. The only
reason people do buy these programs (now) is because they want to be legal
(for whatever reason -- fear of getting caught, support, morals, who
I don't know what they do to hack the programs, but it may be that building
them from source is more work than hacking them.
The short of all this is that I don't think that open source would have a
substantial impact on the availability of bootlegs. They are available now,
for closed source programs.
But just as open source is the only way to make source code copyright
effectively work, it is also the only way to effectively judge the quality
of a development process (from the outside). Programs are too complex for a
single user being able to black box test it before buying. Having the
sources available would help the developing companies to put more effort
into decent development procedures -- because quality would now be visible,
to a certain degree.
In reply to: <012b01c5a654$a1ef5ed0$0201a8c0@dad>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/io/serial/spis.htm?key=spi
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the