[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.