From: zuzu Date: 2004-07-10T09:09:57+09:00 Subject: Re: Secure Ruby Compiler On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:17:31 +0900, John Johnson wrote: > It's a choice. If you want to share your source, that is your decision. > If you don't, that is also your decision. i could burn down your house, and that would be my decision. or i could not, and that would be my decicion. but some human interactive conduct helps dynamically maximize resources and reduce scarcity better than others. > One example of the need to obfuscate code: You have a "power user" > that continually hoses their system by making changes where they > shouldn't be. Locked up source would prevent this. so would educating the user by successfully communicating the context of why those changes are a bad idea in the nature of the code itself. "protecing" users by keeping them niave only increases your time spent (dare i say, wasted) on unproductive work. you can't be every user's mommy, nor do most developers want to be. > On Friday, July 9, 2004, at 05:53 PM, zuzu wrote: > > >open-source software. (and ironically, the GPL proves that most > >people do not, in fact, steal licensed code.) > > How does the GPL prove that? (I'm just asking, not trying to start > a flame war or anything.) despite the *incredible* volume of GPL'd code available on the internet, there have only been about 3 cases of someone (namely companies) stealing GPL'd code. it's not definitive proof. you could argue only 3 people have been *caught* infringing on the GPL license. or that the GPL popularity has many eyes finding infringers a shallow search. however, i feel a statistically safe statement can still be made that just because users can read the code does not mean they are more likely to infringe their licences. i think it's a myth fueled by fear of losing control of something that authors never really had to begin with. "A man is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Ben Schoenbauer > Regards, > JJ -z