🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 Oct 1998 21:14:54 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:

>In all other realms in which copyright is applied, the copyrighted item
>is free and open for inspection by anyone else. It is not a secret.
>software companies triy to use both copyright and trade secret for the
>self same item-- hiding the source and trying to forbid reverse
>engineering, while still claiming copyright protection. 

Right. Furthermore, operating systems are a very special case because
so much depends on them. At the moment a very large slice of the
world's business and industry literally *depends* on the proper
functioning of one proprietary operating system and the software that
runs on it. This operating system is not open to inspection or repair
by *anyone* except the private company that produced it.

This is an intolerable situation with no historical precedent. The
main reason that there are not yet any regulations forcing disclosure
of the code is simply because the situation is so new, and so
technical, that legislators have not yet fully woken up to its
ramifications for society. BG understands all this very well -- he's
milking the system for everything he can get before the inevitable
regulation arrives.

An operating system is different from any other software product -
from any other product, in fact - in several very important ways. It
is the backbone, the supporting skeleton, of the information society.
To allow the efficient use and dissemination of information it is
essential that everyone either use the same operating system, or use
systems that are fully data- and interface- compatible at all levels.
This means that you must have either just one operating system for
everyone, or systems that are *entirely* compatible. Both situations
require open source code to ensure the integrity of the IT resources
upon which society, business and industry depend.

This means that the company that produces the OS that gets used has a
quasi-monopoly by definition. I don't think that a society - in fact,
an entire planet - that depends to a large extent on information
technology can tolerate for very long a situation in which one private
company is allowed almost full control of this essential resource and
all of its workings. 

One can argue about the code of applications, since it's always
possible to choose an alternative, but the case for forcing the
release of OS code seems very compelling. As Bill points out, there's
no reason why the OS producer shouldn't retain copyright and claim
payment for the use of their product and possibly also its derivates,
but that's an entirely different question. 

Tim


__________________________________________________________________
"Life is uncertain. Always eat the dessert first."
IF 'jollynet' THEN 'netcologne' ELSE bounced mail