plug motif libraries

[The Thought Assassin]

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, John Summerfield wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, The Thought Assassin wrote:
> > While I don't feel that software developers have a moral obligation to
> > provide source code to customers, I feel that the industry (but not
> > necessarily companies within the industry) and the consumer would be
> > greatly benefitted by a legal obligation to this effect.
> > My justification is that, in the end, the software industry is a _service_
> > industry, and that servicing the needs of consumers is what the game is
> > about, not just providing shrinkwrapped boxes and a good-luck wish.
> > For a software company to do the best thing by it's consumers, I feel that
> > it should open up it's source to them, and make it's money from supporting
> > it's customers, customizing the product on demand, and providing complete
> > 'solutions' for it's customers' needs, rather than just boxes of disks.
> 
> Well, I reckon that creating a software product such is MSWOD, Lotus SS,
> or even Linux is as much a service as creating motor cars.
> Both are characterised by an extensive R&D process followed by packaging
> and marketting.
Nonono. With a car, the overhead is in the materials and the fabrication,
not in the R&D.

> To require vendors of motor cars to disclose blueprints, chemical formulae
> and manufacturing processes would be as just as requiring vendors of
> software products to disclose their source code.
A good mechanic can make any modification to a car he likes.
Specifications are published defining the makeup of the car to the nth
detail, so that those not with the car company are able to maintain and
service the cars. That is the analogous information in the automative
industry.

> Actually, car vendors would be beter off: not everyone can build a plant
> to make cars, but every Tom, Dick and Harriet these days can run off a few
> floppies or even CDs.
Exactly. The marginal costs for the software industry are _so_ much
smaller than just about any other industry. That is what, in my opinion,
makes it a service industry.

> I do think a requirement to publish interfaces is a fair thing so I can
> hook my application program into MSWORD or design an aircon for the Holden
> Commodore.
Yes. I said in my last message that I didn't feel there was a moral
obligation to publish source, only that I thought it would be good for the
industry and the consumers. I do feel (like you do) that there is an
obligation to publish accurate, detailed and complete interface specs -
something I feel has been sadly missing in the desktop-oriented sectors of
the software industry for a long time.
To my mind, it is not possible to force companies to fulfil this
obligation without making them publish their source.
You give a particular example below...

> And in the particular case where a software manufacturer creates operating
> systems and application programs that their applications programmers
> should have no better access to information and support for current or
> future operating systems than competitors, or better input into desired
> extensions to the OS.

> Imagine the legal bunfight that would ensure if MS was required to reveal
> the sourcecode for MS Wrod, both forcing the disclosure and then lawsuits
> claiming copyright infringment against all competitors: even if the suits
> were without merit, the cost would crush most competition.
Well, if the suits were without merit I don't think they'd last long
enough to crush many competitors.
If the suits have merit then they are a probably a good thing.

-Greg