[A83] Re: Including source files?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: Including source files?
Yes, that is why you want to release the source. Would you rather customers
be frustrated with your software, and cost you money by requiring tech
suport, or would you rather them be able to fix it for themselves? What if
you go out of business, or can no longer support a product? What happens to
your customers that are using your software?
If I buy software, why am I going to crack it? You can crack software
anyway. There is no way to make software unpiratable. Most businesses do
not pirate software, because it is cheaper to comply with the licenses than
it is to risk getting caught not complying. Home users will pirate it, or
go without. Having the source available does not change the licensing
terms.
Modified versions of software can be distributed, whether or not there is
source available. Copyright prevents this, not the availability of the
source code.
You still haven't presented a good argument why it is a detriment to release
the source code to software.
Games are probably the most interesting case. Quake is a good example.
Many people were upset that John Carmack released the source to Quake,
because people were still playing it. The argument is that it made it
easier for people to cheat. While it is true that having the source makes
it easier to cheat, not having the source does not prevent cheating. As
Carmack himself states, it is fundamentally impossible to solve. There were
cheats for Quake long before the source was released. Releasing the source
did not open up new cheats that were impossible before the release.
> Yes, cause everyone can compile it than and crack it easy as shit, the
> program is then licenced, copyrighted, etc. Just like the ROMS for the TI.
> People would change things in the source, recompile so they have altered
the
> version a bit, and the redistribute it. That's not really good.
References: