[plug] Fwd: [SLUG] Lucky 13 for Linux

[Steve Baker]

On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Greg Mildenhall wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Justin wrote:
> > At 02:21 AM 14/04/1999 , Greg wrote:
> > >Yep. If there are 200 people out there who want a copy, then between them
> > >they should be able to hire a programmer to make it for $2000.
> > >At this stage, the software has been written, the programmer has been
> > >paid, and I would consider there little benefit in not giving it, along
> > >with it's source, to others who want it.
> > So you are suggesting that if a program is developed for a purpose, and
> > that purpose if fulfilled there is no real reason why the code can not then
> > be set free...
> Precisely. Even if there is no purpose at all, there aren't many reasons
> not to make the code free. At present, people don't free their code
> because they won't get paid if they do. If we can work out ways to make
> sure they _do_ get paid, then we can make all software free - which is
> better for everyone.

I think you are forgetting that in many cases the company that
commissioned the work in the first place often becomes the owner of the
source code (depending on the contract of course).  In this case they
usually don't want to give it out because purpose-built software of this
type often gives them a competitive advantage, which they usually don't
want to share.  Or they consider it an asset, and many companies don't
just give away assets that they paid significant amounts of money for. 

Whatever the reason, the decision is not always up to the original 
programmer.

bakes
--
Steve Baker,  aka  bakes at corona.iinet.net.au
Open your mind, then check out http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus
No-one can tell you exactly what you have gotta be -- Jimmy Barnes