On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 19:25, Richard Todd Carlson wrote: > *pop* (that was the sound of a can of worms being opened) > > So given the benefits of OSS, is it unethical to produced closed source > software?
If your purpose is to lock people into an upgrade treadmill, control their data and prevent them from using anything else (for example the MS Word dominance and the doc file format), then yes it is. And the sad thing is if you were to simply enforce such lock-in verbally and through exclusive contracts, that would be bordering on illegal, whereas a technical solution that does the same thing is totally legal, since the user could "switch at any time." Palladium, etc all make this type of thing possible whereas it was legally infeasible before. Michael Michael > > Justin Findlay wrote: > > >>I've been wondering how much the average end user really from Open > >>Source software -- does the fact that a package is OS make a significant > >>difference to a person who is not a programmer? Sure -- they could > >>pay a programmer to do some work for them, but in my experience, > >>it takes a fairly in-depth understanding of how a package works > >>before you even know if it _can_ (or ought to) be modified the way > >>you'd like. And then the cost of paying a programmer to add your > >>modifications may be prohibitive. > >> > >> > > > >I suppose I am an "average end user". At least you could say that I use > >Redhat simmilar to how I used Windows. OS makes a tremendous difference > >to me mainly because of the amount of software available. What is more > >important to me (in the desktop sense) is not whether I am capable of > >modifying a complicated piece of software to my needs, for a desktop user > >everything you need has been written in most cases multiple times. You > >have a KDE desktop and a GNOME desktop, OpenOffice and KOffice, etc. > >What is more important is that all of this costs little or is free and > >whether my box can keep itself alive without me worrying over it. As for > >modification (the simple GUI end-user kind) itself and an understanding of > >how your system works, OS will always be superior. > > > > > > > >>Now _Open Standards_ on the other hand, seem to be very beneficial to > >>the average end user. When the end user utilizes file formats, network > >>protocols, etc. that are based on open standards, they avoid vendor > >>lock-in. This means the consumer dictates to the vendor what level of > >>service is required. If the vendor fails to respond satisfactorily, > >>the consumer can choose another vendor. > >> > >> > > > >Exactly, and for open source/free software there actually are many good > >projects to choose from. > > > > > > > >>Of course, I may be way off track. Please enlighten me. > >> > >> > > > >Yeah, you are way off track. (it's a joke :) > > > > > >Justin > > > > > >____________________ > >BYU Unix Users Group > >http://uug.byu.edu/ > >___________________________________________________________________ > >List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
