Posted on 06/24/2003 6:07:26 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
If it's a "lone coder" that ripped the source, that lone coder could just as easily post the source on USENET, IRC, FR, etc. In either hypothetical scenario, the victim is unlikely to receive full restitution for their loss. If a "lone counterfitter" prints an unknown quantity of $20 bills, do you plan to jail everyone that unknowingly accepted and passed those bills -- and how could you? It is probably best to keep your source code and plates secured, because robbery is a truly unpleasant experience. That's why the word "victimized" is often used to describe the situation.
Ya know, when I saw all your replies to me, I thought maybe you had discovered some evidence of code ownership. Imagine my dissapointment when I discovered more hypothetical, opinion, and FUD. I really don't have time to debate the potential consequences of hypothetical crimes. Ping me when some evidence shows up.
Maybe you believe that users of closed source are safer because any potential theft would be hidden from prying eyes? I believe that users of open source are safer precisely because the code is exposed for the world to see, and any stolen code is more likely to be quickly located and replaced.This argument equates to saying "It's nice of my guys to leave their stolen cars in the front yard, so you cops can easily find them. You should let them keep doing it, just for that."
No, this argument equates to saying, "We are not doing anything illicit, and we have nothing to hide. See for yourself. By the way, if you find a bug, either let us know, or feel free to fix it yourself."
If you are unwilling to accept that analogy, perhaps you will understand this - this is strictly placing the burden of finding the stolen code on the true owners, or on law enforcement, as Torvalds freely admits he does not do this
Whereas code owners and law enforcement have virtually no chance, whatsoever, of finding stolen code in closed source products. Who have you tasked with the responsibility of policing closed source for stolen code, the thieves?
Project Manager: "We're getting ready to release Project X. You wrote all this code yourself, right?"Do you really think big software companies like M$, Oracle, CA, Symantec, have time to waste pouring through Linux source to see where pilfered items might be?
Lone Coder/Thief: "Of course, boss. That's what you're paying me to do, right?"
Project Manager: "OK, nice work! Here's your bonus for getting the project wrapped up by release date..."
Do you really think big software companies like MS, Oracle, CA, Symantic, have time to waste pouring through source code -- to which they have no access -- to see where pilfered items might be?
There is no comparison to be made in this regard. Theft is a terrible crime; a code owner is no less a victim simply because they are unaware that a crime happened. Be mindful of those you give access to your "trade secret" code. With all the security holes that seem to get past MS QA, do you really believe that stolen code or trojans would be caught? Please.
EAGLES UP!
It is interesting to see how far this thread has deteriorated since Friday.
GROW UP!
Not if purged of the code anyone has a legally proven claim upon.
Your lead in sentence is completely bogus, likely making the rest of your post worthless as well.
Hey Red, your communist dreams are showing....
Yeah, especially when they implicate you and your free software movement.
Then why are you defending theft, and defending the point of view it's the owner's responsibility to prevent/report it? Couldn't be that you're trying to "talk out of both sides of your mouth" is it?
No, you grow up. It is obvious my position on these issues is the mature and responsible one.
Obvious to no one but you?
*snicker*
You sound like my kids. "But I *am* being mature! [heavy pout][stamps feet]
You're trying to sell the political philosophy of Pat Buchannan to stamp out tools that make Americans money.
Actually, your political philosophy even more radical, even more out-there, than Buchannan's -- and that's saying something.
And you're finding even less success getting people to agree with you. You're finding yourself the source of humor for others, much like Buchannan. And your debate 'style' -- well, "mature" isn't exactly the word that comes to mind.
You've completely "sold out" your freeper experience of this screen name to this issue. You've bet the farm. You've decided to be a single-issue, single-minded advocate who has burned all bridges.
If this case fails on it's merits, this screen name is going to be dead around here.
Good thing you have so many more to choose from, eh?
Not true, because many know me here, and remember seeing my picture on the front pages of newspapers around the country as a front line protestor the day of the US Supreme Court decision concerning the year 2000 election.
YOU, on the other hand, are completely exposed and done for, no matter how this particular trial turns out, because as I have always said, my positions are founded on much larger issues than this particular case, although I think it idenifies it pretty well and will be in favor of the US as much as SCO.
Harr considers to laugh over the damage of the US tech economy and likely loss of US trade secrets to foreign advesaries.
Harr continues to laugh over the damage to the US tech economy and likely loss of US trade secrets to foreign advesaries.
Oh, really now?
Then how do you explain the fact that 97.348% of the people seem to feel this case is without merit, and that Linux is a fine capitalist tool?
I know you seem not to notice how in the minority you are here, and Pat Buchannan's tiny vote intake doesn't sink in either, but you *can't* fail to notice that, at best, you're in the vast minority with your opinion of Linux, Open-source and this case.
You *must* have noticed?
I've noticed a lot about you Harr, that's for sure. Little wonder, it ain't good.
The code has already been publicly released (by SCO).Your lead in sentence is completely bogus, likely making the rest of your post worthless as well.
And now, for a "completely bogus" revelation...
SCO is still releasing their "trade secret" code on their public FTP site!
Cheese Whiz. Unlike yourself, I have absolutely no desire to see anyone surrender ownership of their projects for the greater good of your Golden Kingdom. I especially have no desire to breathe new life into Windows by having the IEEE take the reigns. I thought most folks would have recognized the sarcasm, as I pointed out your hypocrisy, but perhaps I was mistaken.
BTW, nice job on the name issue again.
I really don't have time to debate the potential consequences of hypothetical crimes.Yeah, especially when they implicate you and your free software movement.
Now it's my free software movement, and I am implicated in hypothetical crimes? Oh dear, what might be the potential consequences of this predicament? LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.