My observation in general is that efforts like NOS and Linux-Hams
often develops a momentum among the amateur community which
has win-win features for everyone. On the other hand, where would
NOS be today if KA9Q had not disclosed his source?
How much wider spread would be the use of Clover II and
Pactor II had the developers disclosed their sources? It's
doubtful the authors will get rich by closely guarding them.
73 de Jack
Al Woodhull wrote:
> I normally don't get involved in such debates, but...
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Tim Salo wrote:
>
> > We should all applaud those who make their object code, source code,
> > protocol specifications, and/or documentation freely available. But,
> > we shouldn't feel we have a right to insist that everyone ought to
> > make their intellectual property freely available.
> (snip!)
> I recognize it's a special case when software gets ripped off, the writer
> probably doesn't really want to help those who have stolen it, but some
> effort to help those who have paid for it would seem, again, the honorable
> thing to do.
>
> 73, Al N1AW
> +----------------------------------+
> | Albert S. Woodhull |
> | Hampshire College, Amherst, MA |
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
> | http://minix1.hampshire.edu/asw/ |
> +----------------------------------+
