7 ms·
Just because a product uses open technology, it doesn't necessarily undermine the labour and creative skill that a person puts into creating a product from the
by grabeh 14y ago
Just because a product uses open technology, it doesn't necessarily undermine the labour and creative skill that a person puts into creating a product from the open technology available. This could be the same skill put into a non-open source piece of software, just that the opportunity to copy isn't so readily available.
Also, saying that the person who copied the website could build around the website in no time at all rather assumes that they have the skill to do so.
- ewillbefull 14y ago> Just because a product uses open technology, it doesn't necessarily undermine the labour and creative skill that a person puts into creating a product from the open technology available. I never said it did, and that's what's unfortunate about this situation. His service has no backend that could not be easily replicated, and the frontend is portable. You cannot build software like this without being copied... by nature it is not practical to expect to limit others' behavior with open platform code. There are no laws that will protect you from sufficient copying effort. Whether the person is skilled or not is another issue. The OP would still be mad if somebody ripped off his website and made it just different enough.
- grabeh 14y agoAh I see - yes, I take your point. I agree that if it is easily available, it is likely to be copied, such is the reality of human nature. Unfortunately, it does rather incentivise keeping things locked up which is a shame in some respects in terms of increasing knowledge. Some times the best way of protecting your innovation is simply not to disclose. I agree that most people have an emotional connection to their product and if someone designed around it, it would still hurt. However, this process would take time and is the nature of competition. As such, the impact can't be as great as in the instant case where the infringer has just ported the whole platform.
- davidw 14y ago> non-open source "Open source" does not mean "you can view the source". It means software that is freely usable and redistributable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#The_guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines...
- grabeh 14y agoThank you for the correction. Is there a term to describe code which although freely viewable is not open-source?
- ewillbefull 14y agoProprietary.
- grabeh 14y agoBut that for me doesn't capture the aspect of it being freely available to examine/read - perhaps such a term doesn't exist!
- davidw 14y agoI don't think there's one term. "An application with exposed/visible source code", maybe.
- bigiain 14y agoThe term "shared source" exists, and sort-of covers this scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reciprocal_License#Microsoft_Reciprocal_License_.28Ms-RL.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reciprocal_License#Mi...
- simonster 14y agoMinified JavaScript is only marginally easier to read than disassembled/decompiled binaries.
- Locke1689 14y ago"Source-available"
- codegeek 14y agoThe link has a section that says "Inclusion of source code". I am not an open source expert but I always understood that open source software comes with source code for anyone to view. I could be wrong but would like to confirm this.