support requirement

[Dj]

bruce at perens.com wrote:

> It's true, though - not just a threat. If you don't go Open Source, someone
> else will do it for you, and there are lots of examples. While I'd not explain
> this to someone in terms of a threat, it is a _fact_ they must confront.

<DEVILSADVOCATE>

So, I'm Vendor Q. I have a working product and I make money from it.
"Hey, GPL your product" says a section of the community
(not necessarily my customers). "Why?" ask I. "Well, if you don't do it
then we'll do it for you" comes the response. "So why should I make it
easier for you?"... "But we won't duplicate it  by looking at your code,
but by external reverse engineering". "So you don't need my code"?
"Er, no, but it'd be nice if you went GPL". "Why?"...

Substitute GPL with "Open Source" and you're still spinning in this
problem zone, one which will keep Q from considering opening up.

What's the purpose of "Open Source"? (The GPL purpose is transparently
obvious) To bring software within "firing range" of the GPL/Clone route?
(It's a lot easier to clone something if you have access to a full copy of
what you are cloning)... Or to provide tangible benefits to software
developers either alone or as a working group within an organisation?

</DEVILSADVOCATE>

Dj