4 ms·

I have written free, non-open source software for a non-profit organisation (the software was meant for clients and not a website or a custom application). Your

I have written free, non-open source software for a non-profit organisation (the software was meant for clients and not a website or a custom application). Your comment got me thinking: what is the point of the secrecy? I've never really understood not sharing ideas (source code in this case) if it doesn't harm you in any way. It reminds me of classmates who refuse to discuss an assignment or share their ideas. It always seems there is a certain fear that their ideas will be "stolen" or that others are not worthy of them. I can somewhat understand long-term cost-benefit analysis. My classmates might be right in thinking that others might cheat off them or exploit their ideas. More cynically, allowing others to fail might give you better job prospects. However, it doesn't seem that releasing your source code would have harmed you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to make some assumptions about what you just said. You say that you don't write the software for profit(presumably, you don't plan doing so in the future either). Your main objection is that other people will have access to your "years of hard work, [and] research". Consequently, you fear that others will develop other software based on your work. You appear to be a generous and helpful person by providing the program, and if you really have no commercial interest in your project, I have troubles understanding why you would care. Is it because you want acknowledgement? Please forgive me if I angered you (based on your post, you really don't seem to like this question). However, I just can't understand your philosophy.

ComputerGuru 16y ago
I don't mind the question at all. What angers me is the attitude where people are convinced I'm wrong to withhold the code, regardless of my reasons. As I explain in the sister post, my software contains years of research. It's not the code that I'm keeping secret, it's my hundreds of hours of testing and researching and experimenting to find out how certain inner-system mechanics work. I want to help people achieve these, but I like being the reference for this. There are already people that have stolen (early versions of) my source code (and I mean that literally) and are selling it for profit: http://www.vistabootpro.org/ http://www.vistabootpro.org/ I don't want people to be able to do anything like this. I love the control that I have, and yes, it is a great responsibility. I could abuse this control and charge exorbitant rates for the software and technology, but I don't. While I'm not looking to make money off of my knowledge and prefer to distribute these tools for free, it doesn't mean I don't mind others making money off of MY hard work and research. Whether it's a big company or a small-time get-rich-quick jerk doing the capitalization on my efforts, I really don't want it. I guess it also does have to do with acknowledgement: I want people to know that someone worked hard and is giving this away for free. The minute I give up the source code, the ideas are let loose and anyone can monetize/abuse them. In a way, giving up this measure of control would dilute the value of it. tl;dr I don't want anyone getting rewarded (money or attribution) for my hard work and research. Yes, it is a selfish principle, but I think I'm allowed that much given that everything else I'm doing is selfless...
- chc 16y ago
  You can release source without giving up all rights. For example, to prevent all the stuff you said you didn't want happening, there's a Creative Commons license that requires attribution for any uses of the work and disallows commercial use. (Not trying to talk you into anything. I'm just not sure if you're aware of that kind of license, since it didn't sound like it and those licenses get less attention than the more radical GPL.)
  - ComputerGuru 16y ago
    Not really. While companies do stick to the rules when it comes to copying source code or using open source libraries, when it comes to ideas and discoveries once the cat's out of the bag, it's out for good. It doesn't even need to be done intentionally or maliciously. All it takes is one blog post detailing how something works (as discovered by reading through my code), then another person summarizes that discovery, and the next thing you know, it's all over the web and anyone can & will use it.
    - etherealG 16y ago
      I really like your point here, all the disucussion about open source license always makes me wonder how applicable that is in the real world. What it comes down to is that a lone software developer doesn't generally have the resources available to enforce his license, making it rather pointless.
      - albertzeyer 16y ago
        He has. There are projects like http://www.gpl-violations.org/ http://www.gpl-violations.org/ and people like Harald Welte (and many more) who do have the resources and who will help you (for free).
        _delirium 16y ago
        True, but that mainly helps when it's the body of code that provides the key value, like in a large engineering project of the Linux-kernel variety. If it's the idea and algorithms that are valuable, and the code is a fairly straightforward implementation, then someone can just reimplement it and there's no GPL violation (subject to some gray areas). The only thing that could really keep that from happening is: 1) keep your methods secret; or 2) some variety of software patent.
brc 16y ago
I've seen several cases where free or even paid software is pirated, rebranded and then re-sold, giving the original author no credit at all. Having the source code or not seems to make little difference in these cases, but it's certainly very simple to re-release a product using source code. Not everyone in the software business is full of ethics, morals or even a shred of respect for the work of others. It's a valid fear of being ripped off, even if you don't receive money for the software - not all value delivered to authors is monetary, as the vast bulk of people who write books will tell you. The other thing with releasing open-source versions of software is that sometime, underskilled consultants build versions of your software with code hacks in it, and pass it off to unsuspecting clients. The clients then contact you for support, and you chase your tail trying to work out what is wrong, only to work out eventually that it's a rogue build of the software. This is somewhat ameliorated with a true open source project, but is always a risk if you are supporting versions of your software.

ComputerGuru 16y ago

I don't mind the question at all. What angers me is the attitude where people are convinced I'm wrong to withhold the code, regardless of my reasons. As I explain in the sister post, my software contains years of research. It's not the code that I'm keeping secret, it's my hundreds of hours of testing and researching and experimenting to find out how certain inner-system mechanics work. I want to help people achieve these, but I like being the reference for this. There are already people that have stolen (early versions of) my source code (and I mean that literally) and are selling it for profit: http://www.vistabootpro.org/ http://www.vistabootpro.org/ I don't want people to be able to do anything like this. I love the control that I have, and yes, it is a great responsibility. I could abuse this control and charge exorbitant rates for the software and technology, but I don't. While I'm not looking to make money off of my knowledge and prefer to distribute these tools for free, it doesn't mean I don't mind others making money off of MY hard work and research. Whether it's a big company or a small-time get-rich-quick jerk doing the capitalization on my efforts, I really don't want it. I guess it also does have to do with acknowledgement: I want people to know that someone worked hard and is giving this away for free. The minute I give up the source code, the ideas are let loose and anyone can monetize/abuse them. In a way, giving up this measure of control would dilute the value of it. tl;dr I don't want anyone getting rewarded (money or attribution) for my hard work and research. Yes, it is a selfish principle, but I think I'm allowed that much given that everything else I'm doing is selfless...

chc 16y ago
You can release source without giving up all rights. For example, to prevent all the stuff you said you didn't want happening, there's a Creative Commons license that requires attribution for any uses of the work and disallows commercial use. (Not trying to talk you into anything. I'm just not sure if you're aware of that kind of license, since it didn't sound like it and those licenses get less attention than the more radical GPL.)
- ComputerGuru 16y ago
  Not really. While companies do stick to the rules when it comes to copying source code or using open source libraries, when it comes to ideas and discoveries once the cat's out of the bag, it's out for good. It doesn't even need to be done intentionally or maliciously. All it takes is one blog post detailing how something works (as discovered by reading through my code), then another person summarizes that discovery, and the next thing you know, it's all over the web and anyone can & will use it.
  - etherealG 16y ago
    I really like your point here, all the disucussion about open source license always makes me wonder how applicable that is in the real world. What it comes down to is that a lone software developer doesn't generally have the resources available to enforce his license, making it rather pointless.
    - albertzeyer 16y ago
      He has. There are projects like http://www.gpl-violations.org/ http://www.gpl-violations.org/ and people like Harald Welte (and many more) who do have the resources and who will help you (for free).
      - _delirium 16y ago
        True, but that mainly helps when it's the body of code that provides the key value, like in a large engineering project of the Linux-kernel variety. If it's the idea and algorithms that are valuable, and the code is a fairly straightforward implementation, then someone can just reimplement it and there's no GPL violation (subject to some gray areas). The only thing that could really keep that from happening is: 1) keep your methods secret; or 2) some variety of software patent.

brc 16y ago

I've seen several cases where free or even paid software is pirated, rebranded and then re-sold, giving the original author no credit at all. Having the source code or not seems to make little difference in these cases, but it's certainly very simple to re-release a product using source code. Not everyone in the software business is full of ethics, morals or even a shred of respect for the work of others. It's a valid fear of being ripped off, even if you don't receive money for the software - not all value delivered to authors is monetary, as the vast bulk of people who write books will tell you. The other thing with releasing open-source versions of software is that sometime, underskilled consultants build versions of your software with code hacks in it, and pass it off to unsuspecting clients. The clients then contact you for support, and you chase your tail trying to work out what is wrong, only to work out eventually that it's a rogue build of the software. This is somewhat ameliorated with a true open source project, but is always a risk if you are supporting versions of your software.