Re: [discuss] Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: [discuss] Open source software News

[Sander Vesik]

Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> > Chris Sherlock wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose this seems like a fair enough answer... I guess you see 
> > > software more as an infrastructure that the govt should maintain and 
> > > develop. I'm still not so sure...
> > >
> > > What I *do* think, however, is that governments should make it 
> > > compulsory for software companies (and peripheral companies, in 
> > > particular!) to open their code. Do you know the number of times I've 
> > > had to scrap or make do with 2nd-best because I couldn't see the 
> > > source code of some crappy product???? :) I guess that's why I only 
> > > run Linux now (especially now I've worked out CUPS and Samba).
> >
> > I don't agree with this - governemnts dictating things about software 
> > and hardware have so far only given lots of negative results. The 
> > goverment should require that things it buys have open interfaces (and 
> > this applies to both hardware and software). 
>
>
> Surely forcing the opening of code would give more reliable products! 
> But I realise that what I'd like to see and do and what is actually 
> practical are different things. I think I also want to see govts force 
> the opening of products 'cause I like tinkering with source code :)

Even if companies were forced to open the source of everything they 
release (something I don't see as usefull or realistic) it would not be 
much help to you. Because not only will you have sever trouble making it 
build, chances are by the time you have figured out what piece of code 
does what they have released a new version in which your finding may not 
be true any more.

Never mind that chances are you would need a bunch of internal tools. So 
effectively such a law would place an extra burden on anybody making 
software while in reality not giving you any tangible benefits. It would 
be a stupid, useless and wasteful law.

> Open interfaces and standards that force compatibility are the next best 
> option, I think. I think that organisations shouldn't be allowed to 
> force you into using their application because they don't publish their 

You aren't forced to use anybodies app. In fact, you aren't forced to 
use computers at all, so this is not a useful argument.

> APIs or explain how the file format works. I think they should 
> definitely be made to give this information, or if they don't people 
> should be allowed to work it out themselves (through whatever means they 
> want) and then should be allowed to publish this information.
>
> My limited understanding of the DMCA is that this isn't allowed and has 
> the potential to put you in jail? I'm not a USian, btw, is this true?

I'm not a lawyer - the stuff gets interpreted in various ways.

>  > This gives you a good
>  > balance and keeps most of the lobbyists from paying attention and
>  > screewing things royaly up.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

Fopr example, one potential thing the software industry could - and 
probably would successfully lobby for - could be say the ability to 
leave out any pieces of code that relate to trade secrets. Most 
parliemanterians would find it hard to not agree too - the result being 
that instead of "full code" you will be getting a broken hacked up set 
of sources that are of no real use to you. In fact, if the law passed 
with such amendment, it would immediately get overturned by courts in 
almost everyhwre in the world.

And that is simply one way out of many in which you would end up with 
broken useless sources.

> Chris