Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:56 PM
My view on Microsoft
I believe that they have a monopolistic way of doing things. I don't
think it makes a difference if they have open source code in their
software or not. The big thing is that they sell an operating system.
Not just that, but the fact that they do so while also selling software
that only works on their operating system. I know that they have some
that works on Mac OS's, but they could just as easily make software
that works on Linux and they don't. It doesn't have to be open source
to work on Linux. It could be all binary files and it'd still work on
Linux. They could, correct me if I'm wrong, probably even make their
own libraries(Like they do with their dlls) that nobody could
read(Since it is closed source). From my point of view, they have no
reason not to be able to make software for Linux.
Now, as for
patents on software. BS. Copyrights are fine, closed source is fine.
But when you start patenting software you prevent software innovation.
If the source is closed people can't copy your code anyway so you
shouldn't even need patents. There might just be someone who comes up
with an idea similar to yours, or that codes similar to you. There is
no way to tell unless they have your exact code in their program. And
that puts open source at a disadvantage because they can't see the
closed source code. I'm not saying that we should open source
everything. That would be stupid because then everything would be
pretty much free since anyone could program their own internet explorer
or cd burning software and wouldn't have to pay a dime, just their
time. What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be patents on software.
Actually, a good idea would be to make a system where you could send in
your code and you'd receive a paper, and one would be documented, that
you were the first person to make that 'code' or 'program'. Then if
someone else made a program that was exactly the same as yours and
tried to sell it you could sue and maybe get some compensation or
license it to them to sell as a representative for you. But if someone
made a program for themselves and didn't try to sell it or redistribute
it they couldn't be sued because they probably didn't know your code
anyway and weren't trying to sell it.
You see, the problem
with non-physical stuff(Especially stuff that can be changed so easily
to avoid prosecution, without altering its function) is that it is hard
to define. You could say that everything has to be made in it's very
own code, but then nothing would be compatible with anything else. You
could also say that everything has to use the same structure(Or make a
standard structure, such as HTML), but then everything that has been
made so far would have to be recoded to fit the structure and it would
cost a lot of money(Or with open source software, a lot of time). I'd
go with the second choice, even if it costs a lot of money. Because it
would give courts a clear cut case against people who did copy
code(Remember, copyrights are our friends. ;)). or those who didn't.
That means less legal problems, but you'd also have to specify certain
things that couldn't be copyrighted, otherwise you wouldn't be able to
make anything even similar to another program(Due to the standard
coding structure) without being sued.
Over all. I think it is
just stupid to put any protection on software, as it prevents
innovation. Copyrights on programs that are closed source so that
people can't put them on a burnable CD are okay, but when you get down to
the code it gets just plain stupid.
I think I'm about
done... Any comments are welcome, just don't start flaming or anything,
especially don't post messages that you can't back up. ;)
Thanks for reading. ^.^