[BrentRitterbeck]

You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software.

My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.

[lutorm]

You do have a right to the source code if it's free software. Your argument is analogous to saying that the right to vote is not a right at all, because it only applies to democratic countries. There are no universal rights, yet there are rights.

[mixmax]

That's a strawman argument.

Of course you have a right to the code if it's free (as in freedom) software - that's the point!. If it isn't you don't. The parent was pointing out that many people feel that they have a right to the source of closed source software because of FOSS. Which they don't.

[pingswept]

That's a good point. Despite being something of a FOSS zealot myself, I agree that I have no rights whatsoever to the source of closed source software. I tend to shy away from closed source software for that reason, but so what-- I shy away from horror movies, fax machines, and American cars as well.

[BrentRitterbeck]

I wasn't talking about just open source software several posts up the chain. I intended the comment to mean that FOSS seems to be giving people the idea that ALL software should have viewable source.

[bayareaguy]

You don't need access to the source. If you don't like how the software works, you have two options: (1) Don't buy the software, or (2) write new software.

What about option (3): fix it yourself (or hire someone who can) if it's important to you, which in practical terms means you do need the source.

My point was that many people feel they have a right to the source code. It's not a right at all, no matter what Stallman says.

That's odd. I believe the authors of the software I use on my FreeBSD server claim otherwise.

[BrentRitterbeck]

That's odd. I believe the authors of the software I use on my FreeBSD server claim otherwise.

The beliefs of the developers of FreeBSD, Torvalds, or Stallman do not have to power to null and void several decades of legislation and legal precedent. Again, my original comment was how FOSS seems to have given people the idea that every piece of software should have viewable source.

I've toyed around with the idea of open source. I use open source software. I'm typing this in Firefox running on Ubuntu. I use the GNU compilers, both C and C++. I'm simply trying to say that there is place for both open source and closed source. Given the business I'm in, I will never release open source software, and I expect the software I do write will continue to be protected under various legislation.

[jacquesm]

There is definitely a place for closed source:

- limited audience

- not to be hacked together by a bunch of people without knowledge in the relevant field(s), said knowledge only to be gained by years of study and hard work (think enterprise resource stuff)

- software developed 'in house' (think banking, insurance)

- stuff that isn't 'sexy' and that doesn't give you bragging rights.

The point of this is that the vast majority of ALL the software in use could have been open source.

And woe to you closed source author if one day some group of attic hackers decides to compete with you.

That has happened to many software companies that thought they had found a profitable niche that nobody else was interested in.

[BrentRitterbeck]

I am working on my own trading and valuation software. The public will never see the source, just like they will never see the source from JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, or any other firm on the Street.