closed source, what's the big deal?

[d.j.schroeder]

Ok, I'm fairly new to the whole linux and open source software thing. I certainly see the advantages and disadvantages of this type of approach to software development. But, I do have a question.

Why do people seem so upset with Microsoft and others who sell closed source software? As though it is a violation of freedom somehow? I don't get it.

We're all (almost) using Intel or AMD processors, they don't release the details of their circuit layout or their process steps. Not that I think they should, but no one seems bothered by it. I could go on and on about proprietary technology that we all use all the time, but I think everyone knows. Why is software such a special case? Does everyone else do something with computers for a living?

Anyway help me out, it's an honest question.

[meng]

From my viewpoint, software is a special case because if I had the source code, i could build on it and share my work with others. Tools to alter/enhance software are much more easily found and used than tools to alter/enhance hardware. AMD could release the design of their chips, it wouldn't do me any good though.

[23meg]

We have a very recent and very similar thread here.

[mysticrider92]

I don't dislike all closed source software (there is some pretty nice stuff out there), but M$ products seem to be badly written, slow, and lacking any personalization. On the hardware level, it doesn't really matter to me if I can find the exact wiring diagram and all technologies in my processor. As long as I can compile and run software on it, I don't really need it, but being able to modify the code for Windows to make it faster and better looking is something I would like to be able to do.

[az]

Why do people seem so upset with Microsoft and others who sell closed source software? As though it is a violation of freedom somehow? I don't get it.

The way proprietary software tries to protect their rights (in many cases) does take away my freedom.

Software should not be protected by patents and in some countries, and it is. A company who holds a patent on some software that they wrote can prevent anyone else from writing something similar. Since software is not one big innovation at a time, by very small incremental logical progressions, software patents only inhibit innovation.

Even though I can have a great idea and solve a particular problem, someone else's patent can oblige me to pay them so that I can use it. That's not fair. Any other person would write very similar code to solve the same problem.

If proprietary software did not involve patents, it would limit my freedoms a lot less.

I just posted this in another thread:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...95&postcount=9

[insane_alien]

here's how patents can go wrong.
some company writes program A and patents it.
Joe write an open source program that does the same as A but is open source.
by coincidence they both come up with the same method for the program to perform its function(some times there is only one(practical) way when dealing with logical systems)
the company looks at joe's program and sees its the same structure as theirs(the variable names would probably be different)
the company then sues joe for everything he's got even though joe has never even seen the source to their program and its legal.

not very fair and free is it?

[Mateo]

i agree, it's no big deal. no one complains that KFC guards their secret recipe. It's business, of course your not going to share your livelyhood with competition!

[az]

no one complains that KFC guards their secret recipe. It's business, of course your not going to share your livelyhood with competition!

You miss the point. Software more closely resembles an idea than a recipe. Your analogy would be more close to saying that since KFC holds a patent on a chicken recipe, no one else should be allowed to sell fried chicken.

It sounds ridiculous, but that's exactly what software patents do.

Copyright protects the authors of software. And that is a good thing for everyone involved. Patents, however, are not appropriate for software and they benefit no one else but the holder of the patent - they harm everyone else.

[d.j.schroeder]

Ok, but that patent system is general, it applies to everything, not just software. And it is possible for someone to read the patents before doing something to violate them. Yes, I know it's almost impossible. I've written a few myself (not software) and the system does seem a little messed up. As far as incremental stuff goes, it applies to everything not just software. Chemical compositions, semiconductor processing, even business systems...

So far it seems like the general sentiment is that it is only a major issue to people because they want to be able to mess with the software, so knowing device layouts is irrelevant because the people here are software guys.

I have my own issues with microsoft. Having to call them because I replaced a motherboard and Windows wouldn't let me activate and all that. It's irritating for sure. I actually think they'll eventually end up killing themselves, especially if the Vista pricing I've seen is right. You can build a perfectly decent PC for anything but gaming for a few hundred bucks. I think people in developing countries will choke on adding a few hundred more for an OS. And eventually, that will seriously hurt Microsoft. But, that's just my opinion.

[az]

Ok, but that patent system is general, it applies to everything, not just software. And it is possible for someone to read the patents before doing something to violate them. Yes, I know it's almost impossible. I've written a few myself (not software) and the system does seem a little messed up. As far as incremental stuff goes, it applies to everything not just software. Chemical compositions, semiconductor processing, even business systems...

The original idea behind patents was to encourage people to make their inventions public. People who invested a lot of ressources in developing their product stood to lose a lot by making them public without patent protection. Patents are made to benefit the public. Those inventions get released to the public.

Software patents, are different. It doesn't take that much work to develop software - it's a sequence of small logical progressions. Code reuse demands that you build of past work.

Software more closely resembles an idea than an invention. You cannot convince me that having a patent which covers "a (any) program which responds to the pressing a combination of two keys simultaneously" is protecting anyone's interests (other than the holder of the patent). Software patents do not benefit the public, and no, you cannot write anything without violating the patents on the most basic of things (opening a window, clicking on an icon, spawing a child process, etc...)

Patents do work for inventions. They are ridiculous when applied to software, however.

So far it seems like the general sentiment is that it is only a major issue to people because they want to be able to mess with the software, so knowing device layouts is irrelevant because the people here are software guys.

I'm not a developer. I want to kep my freedom to run the software I chose on my computer. Software patents threaten that. It has nothing to do with your level of computer skill.

I have my own issues with microsoft.

Who cares about microsoft?