Comments on: Why Giving Away Your Code Is Not Dangerous

By: Random Coder

Random Coder — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:53:47 +0000

Open source is the Public Library of code-land. It’s where old coders go when their careers die so they can appear ‘active’ and hopefully break back into the commercial world or con some investors into ‘donating’ to their ‘non-profit’ open source project. It’s where the great classical works of literature (bubble sort, etc.) hang out in or near the public domain. You’ll never find the latest, greatest, or best novel, technical manual, periodical, or exactly what you needed in the Public Library as soon as you can find it on Amazon or Barns & Noble. Linux, Mono, Drupal, and every other open source project out there lags behind the cutting edge, like the three year old novels drifting into the public library. By the time the open source conforms to the open standard set by a closed source industry (i.e. creator or innovator with substantial R&D budgets allocated from all that oh-so-evil profit), the “greedy capitalists” who insist on closed source for their proprietary works have already released their second version and an expansion to the standard, or even a replacement standard that is 2 to 3 times better than the old.

In short, open source lags behind, follows, and fails to innovate. It’s only really non-profit for the people who do the work – open source developers. And if you’re not getting paid to write software, get ready to say “Would you like fries with that module?”

By: Giving Away Your Code at blog.rotracker.net

Giving Away Your Code at blog.rotracker.net — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:13:15 +0000

[...] Why Giving Away Your Code Is Not Dangerous. [...]

By: Warrem

Warrem — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:51:21 +0000

“Well, he released them after sales on both items were down to almost nothing. It took, what? 5 years before they released it? Quake 3 engine they also waited like 5-6 years to release it. You just don’t get it. At that point, they had made their money, and moved years beyond that technology. It’s like possessing the source code to Windows 95. Big whoop, the company knows you cant modify that to *beat* anything they are currently doing.”

You’re looking at it from a purely financial standpoint. That’s not where I’m coming from.

To use your example, why doesn’t MS give away the Windows 95 source code? It’s financially dead to them so why hold onto it? id released their source in the hopes that others could learn from it (which they have). MS will never do that because they fear code is a zero sum game.

It’s not.

By: » Why This Blog is a Failure - John Andrews - johnon.com

» Why This Blog is a Failure - John Andrews - johnon.com — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:58:27 +0000

[...] not good at pretending to be dumb. I can’t, for example, proclaim with a straight face that it is not dangerous to give away code. Hell I can’t even link to it with a straight face. It would be so phony, even I [...]

By: openswitch » Why Giving Away Your Code Is Not Dangerous

openswitch » Why Giving Away Your Code Is Not Dangerous — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:38:57 +0000

[...] Why Giving Away Your Code Is Not Dangerous. Very interesting article. Even more interesting are the comments that follow. I think there needs to be a distinct understanding that code is different from solution. I have lots of people come to me with a problem. They say, “I need a solution.” I could just point them to, say, WordPress and say, “There’s all the code you need.” But that’s not what they’ll be paying me for. They want me to take that freely available code and use it to create a solution to their problem. This entry was posted on at 4:38 pm and filed under url. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed. « A fractured convention? [...]

By: stevo

stevo — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:26:40 +0000

“You get all the credibility, goodwill and even get back a lot of code back from the community. ”

It’s pretty apparent you haven’t ever managed an open source project. You’ll get some vague bug reports, people asking questions and for support, and thats usually about it. It will cost your company/self time, energy, etc with very little back except some poor QA.

If you download some open source software, and see a bug, do you personally file a nice report along with your fixes? no, i bet you just hack in a fix and go about your business.. or if you cant code, you complain that something isnt working. I dont see that as much of a benefit.

By: IncrediBILL

IncrediBILL — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:36:53 +0000

Well giving away some code open source *IS* dangerous, especially code that focuses on server security because it gives those very people you’re trying to stop the ability to look at what you did and find any easy way to circumvent your code.

FWIW, Open Source is Open Season on anyone running it which is why anyone running phpBB, WordPress and other Open Source products typically have a bullseye painted on their servers which is why I don’t use those tools.

Might as well give crooks the keys to your front door.

Yup, nothing dangerous about giving it away.

By: vrypan|net|weblog » Why Giving Away Your Code Is Not Dangerous | iface thoughts

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:55:03 +0000

[...] Why Giving Away Your Code Is Not Dangerous [...]

By: chris

chris — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:19:50 +0000

As a side note, it is rather sad that you equate coding with a ferryman giving directions. I equate it closer to writing novels. Do you see [insert your favorite author here] releasing all his works with free modification and free of copyright restrictions? Yes, you can see his ’source code’, but you have no rights to them besides fair use. The idea behind open source is that others usually retain rights to use your code with little restrictions (even the GPL grants this). Sure, anyone could write any novel out there (lol), but there is something to be said for a single piece of work that is unique and non reproducible.

By: chris

chris — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:14:12 +0000

“John Carmack has given away the source code for the Doom games as well as the first 3 Quakes – is his company suffering?”

Well, he released them after sales on both items were down to almost nothing. It took, what? 5 years before they released it? Quake 3 engine they also waited like 5-6 years to release it. You just don’t get it. At that point, they had made their money, and moved years beyond that technology. It’s like possessing the source code to Windows 95. Big whoop, the company knows you cant modify that to *beat* anything they are currently doing.

As for the ferryman/directions analogy, it is ridiculous on so many levels.

This is more akin to the proverbial ‘family recipe’ that has been passed down for generations. It’s been stated that any code out there can be reproduced. True, but so can that family recipe, but does it? You don’t see coke releasing their recipe, or if you buy a scalped ticket, the guy doesn’t give you a manual on how you can do it yourself and cut him out completely. Hell, the guy fixing your car would have a problem walking you through doing the whole thing yourself, giving you training manuals and his personal contacts to get cheap parts, wouldn’t he?

I am a fan of open source technology, and in many cases, it makes sense to open source things (Adoption, gaining customers, making a large project better, etc), but other times, it is harmful to your business to even consider it. You do not seem to think there is a distinction, and that is sad.