Barracuda plays the hippie card in Trend Micro patent row

ClamAV

Dan, for some reason you neglect to point out, that the reason why Barracuda is claiming to defend Free- and Open Source Software is because what they are actually shipping is ClamAV. And that a defeat would set precedence to sue everyone using ClamAV on their gateways.

I know it is mentioned in the very beginning - but beyond that is it completely absent.

For anyone desiring a different view on the story - try Ars Technica:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080129-barracuda-defends-open-source-antivirus-from-patent-attack.html

Their reasoning for Symantec and McAfee to settle is, that it was probably cheaper (and definitely safer) to do.

Propaganda

The very phrase "Intelectual Property" is a magnificent example of propaganda. It begs the question without seeming to. Everyone who uses this now ubiquitous phrase tacily admits that ideas are *things* - like my shoes, or my house - that are rightfully someone's property. It's impossible to argue to argue that no-one has a right to sue other people for using a blinking cursor in their app without some idiot going "but IP is *property* and using someone else's property without permission is wrong". The question of whether or not the idea of using a blinking cursor *can* be "property" is precisely the point at issue.

So, good on these people for delegitimising these particular IP squatters (see what I mean?), but it's not the real problem.

@Solomon

I think you might want to google the history of Linux.

People don't just develop software for "Money" or to make a living. A lot of people develop for the joy of it and the joy of giving to a community.

But, then again, there are a lot of people on the world who really dont give a rats arse about anyone but themselves.

Randall.

@Randall

That's nice. Now try saying it again on an empty stomach.

@Randall

Coding isn't fun. Seeing something work gives a nice sense of achievement, but putting the work in certainly isn't fun. Neither is learning the skills to allow you to code. Without financial incentive, what is the point of going to that effort? Is 'for everybodys benefit' going to put food on the table? Is 'the community' going to provide a place to live? Are all these nice people who quite happily accept your free software going to come to your house with food parcels, pay your bills, fill your fuel tank? I don't think so.

On the other hand, if you code in your spare time around a real job all software becomes a mess. Bugs are fixed as and when you have the time, features designed the gui for but haven't implemented the back end never get finished or you stop bothering altogether as you can't be bothered with that particular piece of software as you are now putting your free time into something you find more interesting. You give people your source to carry it on, and maybe (and it is only maybe) someone else will be interested enough to continue developing it. The code becomes bloated with half finished bits that no-one knows if they can remove because it isn't documented properly.

It's exactly those reasons that linux STILL isn't a massive influence despite being developed for over 15 years. It is really good to use it for dedicated hardware or specific tasks that the software can be created for with the intention of leaving it alone - in digiboxes for example but on the desktop it is still a mess and businesses know it meaning they are unwilling to deploy it.

And it isn't about not giving a rats arse about anyone else. If you are homeless and starving how exactly are you in position to help anyone?

@solomon

Most open source development is done for purely commercial motivation by some of the majority of programmers whose software market happens not to involve the marketing and selling of packages of code to incremental users. For example, my motivation for developing code is primarily to help teach my students, and the secondary motivation is for me to increase my knowledge of matters that interest me. I have no need to peddle code packages to customers. It is very unlikely that I could make a profit by doing so - the costs would far outweigh the revenue. The reason for using free software licensing is so that my software use and knowledge shares the benefits as widely as possible with other programmers who are doing the same as me.

The view that the software market comprises solely packages sold incrementally demonstrates a a clear knowledge deficit. You might therefore be able better to adapt yourself better to the technical effects of these realities by going on some of the courses which open-source programmers like myself who are working in academic and training organisations are developing and delivering.

Names

"Coding isn't fun. "

Maybe not for you, but for many people it is. Isn't it more cost-efficient to have only the latter group write software, and release the people for whom coding isn't fun do something else, like showel dirt or sell herbal supplements?

later:

"The code becomes bloated with half finished bits that no-one knows if they can remove because it isn't documented properly."

A pretty good description of most commercial software as well... you just don't see it in closed-source apps. I'm currently trying to pick up the maintenance of a particular closed-source cross-development tool chain, meaning a lot of reverse-engineering of rather ugly C code...

It is just in the nature of software.

Barracuda?

They're behind that piece of shit Barracuda Spam Firewall, aren't they?

The one that sends messages back to the *faked* sender?

Deserve all they get, the useless bastards.

@ solomon 3 + anon coward

Further to previous responses that explained how companies can make money out of OSS....

Reasons why people develop software:

1) It's their job to develop that piece of software, hence: Money

2) They don't get paid to develop software, but developing _this_ piece of software will make it easier for them to do whatever it is they get paid to do.

3) They want their computer to be able to do a particular, non-work-related thing, but either there is no software available, or they can't/won't pay for software already on the market.

4) Somebody mentioned an interesting problem to them, they've grown out of Meccano, jigsaw puzzles seem pointless and they don't have the time, funds or hangar to build an F15 from scratch.

5) They see a piece of OSS in an area in which they'd like to work (eg games, graphics, technical computing), but in which they have insufficient experience. They do it to familiarise themselves with the concepts/gotchas/techniques.

In the 1st case, there would obviously be no question of sharing the code and the Mill Owner might not be keen in the 2nd case.

For the others, though, what is to be gained by _not_ sharing? If the software becomes popular, the OSS developer gains kudos - kudos is a saleable quality - and you will probably know more about the software than anyone else (at least initially). If no-one but you ever uses it, you can view it as having gained development experience rather than rueing it as a failed get-rich-quick scheme.

PS Paris because she's living proof you can make millions by showing everyone your bits ;-)