Re: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Seth Johnson wrote:


> 
> The application of the trade secret model is far better because it separates
> private interest from exclusive rights.  "Publishing" does not simply mean
> "readable" or "viewable."  It means making available to the public.

Publication != "freely given" however. As an example, a copy of the
source (or the right to one) could accompany each binary copy of the
application and fulfill a publication requirement.  However, if
algorithm can only protected as a trade secret

(a) The secret is never shared (and never falls into the public domain)
and potentially lost (c.f. the Stradivari (sp?) brothers and their
irreproducible violins)

(b) a source publication requirement will never be accepted by software
companies

(a) and (b) tending to be antithetical to "promote progress" I'm not too
fond of them.

(b) is a potential "open source" killer.  If SCO is successful, and open
source coders are responsible for copyright infringement of any code
contributed, then the corporate fears and the need for indemnification
against these claims will drive away many volunteers.

.002