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

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Steve Baker wrote:
> 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).
How can they own an infinitely reproducible, non-physical object?
I think you mean, "under current law, the company is given the right to
prevent others using the code".

> 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.
Yes. It should be stopped. This kind of anticompetitive behaviour provides
no benefit whatsoever to the consumer, while increasing costs of
production through not sharing the code.
When a company acts in a way intended to hurt its competitors, and in
doing so does harm to consumers, It is undermining the capitalist
principles on which our entire society is based.
That is why there is antitrust law.

Do you see a difference between a company telling a programmer "we won't
hire you to write software unless you promise not to give/sell software to
our competitors" and Microsoft telling an OEM "we won't sell you windows
unless you promise not to install Netscape on your PCs"?
I certainly don't.

> Or they consider it an asset, and many companies don't just give away
> assets that they paid significant amounts of money for. 
They are not giving it away, they are sharing it. There is a very big
difference. 
It would certainly be fairer for the companies to share the cost
initially, however.

-Greg Mildenhall