Brad McCormick replied:
> I am saying that Microsoft
> should be required to make public its code. But it could
> still *sell* its products!
What would be the point of that? To make sense, this would require
that users have the right to *compile* the full source code and then
use the resulting object code instead of M$'s WinDOS, M$-Office etc.,
to make sure that M$ didn't sneak in a trapdoor in the runtime version
on their desktop. But the lawyers won't allow compilation by the user.
Much less would they allow modifications of the M$ source code.
So, you see, it's EITHER closed source (M$) OR open source (with the
right to compile and modify the code). "Public M$ code" would only be
a PR gag (and M$ wouldn't want that anyway, because the public would
die laughing at the buggy code).
> I think that
> there are good reasons to pay for software even if you
> can get the software for free: the operative word here
> is *support*.
With OpenSource, you can hire anyone for support (that's how the
OpenSource folks earn their money in the first place!). AND you
(or your supporter) can *modify* the software (adapt it to your needs
and fix bugs), because you have the source code and the right to
modify&recompile it. Can't do that with M$ stuff.
With M$, for support you depend on M$ and their arrogant and useless
supporter cartel. And M$ support isn't free either, plus you pay
big time for the software itself.
> Where I work, we use Java ("SE") and the support from Sun is
> not too much better than what we pay for it: $0.00.
> I think Java is a pretty good computer programming
> language, but I would sure like to see my employer
> pay for it if that would result in our getting
> the kind of service support I remember from IBM back in the
> 1970s.
Can't blame that on OpenSource. (Btw, guess why IBM is big into OSS?)
</free_support> ;-)
Chris
