4 ms·

I think you may have missed my point. I want businesses to profit off of their software... I just also want them to provide customers with the sources used to p

by ohazi 7y ago

I think you may have missed my point. I want businesses to profit off of their software... I just also want them to provide customers with the sources used to produce the software they just paid for. Copyright law can still apply. Just because I have your sources doesn't mean I can go and use them in my own software, or re-implement your patented algorithm. "But how can I be sure that my customer isn't stealing my work?" Well, ask someone to look at the source code they provide to their customers. Remember, we're in an imaginary world where source-included is the normal way to sell software, and anyone peddling binary blobs is seen as shady.

teddyh 7y ago
You having the sources does not change the incentive of the software’s creator. The unwanted functionality (which the software creator is pressured to include) will instead be put in: 1. Obfuscated code. This is a classic, employed back in the day when raw machine code wasn’t quite as much of a barrier like it is nowadays. Less common now since its importance has lessened, but still ever-present, and could be re-employed instantly. 2. The very design of the software. For instance, the software might require a phone number for every user, and this is baked in at the very fundamental design level, making it impractical to change. Other design choices might encourage you to share your contact lists, for say, backups, and your data is now leaked. 3. The software is merely a collection stubs calling a cloud service. Very common now with so-called "apps" for phones. This design has come to its pinnacle with “web page apps”, where only the front-facing UI portion sits on the user‘s control, and the rest runs remotely. This is why “shared source” and the like is not enough. The end user must have the practical ability to, reasonably easily change the software, either by themselves or by hiring anyone they like and/or trust to do it for them.
dkersten 7y ago
Kinda how commercial game engines often came with the source code. Not open source, heavily restricted with license, but available for the user (licensee) to look at and make modifications to it required.

by ohazi 7y ago

teddyh 7y ago

You having the sources does not change the incentive of the software’s creator. The unwanted functionality (which the software creator is pressured to include) will instead be put in: 1. Obfuscated code. This is a classic, employed back in the day when raw machine code wasn’t quite as much of a barrier like it is nowadays. Less common now since its importance has lessened, but still ever-present, and could be re-employed instantly. 2. The very design of the software. For instance, the software might require a phone number for every user, and this is baked in at the very fundamental design level, making it impractical to change. Other design choices might encourage you to share your contact lists, for say, backups, and your data is now leaked. 3. The software is merely a collection stubs calling a cloud service. Very common now with so-called "apps" for phones. This design has come to its pinnacle with “web page apps”, where only the front-facing UI portion sits on the user‘s control, and the rest runs remotely. This is why “shared source” and the like is not enough. The end user must have the practical ability to, reasonably easily change the software, either by themselves or by hiring anyone they like and/or trust to do it for them.

dkersten 7y ago

Kinda how commercial game engines often came with the source code. Not open source, heavily restricted with license, but available for the user (licensee) to look at and make modifications to it required.