Hi, Jochen!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I think CodeSecurity through compiling is nonsense.
>
Bit harsh. Not nonsense, just not a perfect solution against a
well-equipped, knowledgeable attacker.
>
> You should compile something to make it running faster...
Agreed that this is another advantage.
>
> ... not to make sure nobody can read your secrets.
>
How about, "To make it difficult enough that fewer will do so,
and to reduce the risk of alterations (accidental or otherwise)
of the source which can create stability/support problems."
>
> If someone really is interested in your code - a compiler doesn't
> protect you.
>
If that someone is sufficiently skilled and has sufficient resources
and time, agreed. But not everyone fits those criteria.
>
> Open Source is a important quality-characteristic...
>
Open source development (if properly managed) is certainly an
effective process for producing high-quality code. Even the
Forrester group agrees with that (much to my amazement!)
>
> If I charge a software-team to develop a special software for me,
> I certainly want the source too! Such a software will cost me
> ~ 100$ per man-hour!!!
>
And if you're paying them to develop custom software for you, it
is certainly reasonable for you to establish as a condition of the
contract that you get the source (or at least have access to it in
the event of a failure on their part).
However, there's more to the software market than bright people
such as yourself contracting with high-priced developers for the
construction of custom code.
BOTTOM LINE: As has been pointed out in the recent "40 platforms"
thread, there's a real marketplace out there. While Carl and
company would be within their legal/moral/whatever rights to stop
supplying REBOL for w95/98/nt/2k (just to use a hypothetical and
totally unlikely example ;-), I'd consider that an impractical
decision if the goal is to get REBOL widely adopted. Similarly,
although I applaud/appreciate the legions of excellent developers
who contribute to the open source movement, and am a grateful
beneficiary of their labors, I question the practicality of
refusing to address the concerns of developers who wish to have
some other means of distribution than pure source code -- for a
variety of reasons.
-jn-
