On 1/29/99 at 00:51, raffael@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) wrote: > 1. Users have different levels of computer skill. The more difficult it is > to get around your copy protection, the fewer sales you lose. > I think that's what I was trying to say by picking on AOL people. > 2. Providing source not only puts your app out there unprotected, it allows > others to use the source to make their own, competing products - i.e., it > not only loses sales, it helps your competitor into the bargain. To me, there are two levels of this. First, if one of you guys wanted to use something or part of something that I wrote and asked first or at least told me what was going on, I could care less as long as it went both ways and I got some reasonable attribution (which I suppose is what the Perl Artistic License says). But if some gigantic nest of brilliant but Evil Bastards (to use Hunter S. Thompson's favorite phrase) who ought to be able to think of these things themselves not only grabbed it, but claimed that they thought of it in order to assure their prosperity on, let's say Mercer Island, then I would be greatly honked and ready to go to war. My prospects of pinning back their ears would be much better if I could show that $theircode eq $mycode and that $mycode was restricted to paying customers. As a corollary, open source also means that the Evil Bastards could probably find something somewhere that preceded what I did even tho I never knew about it and the bets are off at that point. Maybe that just means that I should have spent more time looking and less time thinking, but I'm not sure that this is a good thing. Again, I'm not knocking open source as such. It is economically viable so long as you are not dealing with distributables and, from what I've seen, the product is much superior. Richard Gordon Gordon Consulting & Design Voice: 770-565-8267 Fax: 770-971-6887 ***** Want to unsubscribe from this list? ***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch