Comments on: A Letter to the #Occup(iers): The Principle of Non-Contradiction http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/ Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: seomed http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/#comment-49575 Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:32:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2002/08/open_code_closed_code.html#comment-49575 متخصص سئو

]]>
By: طراحی سایت http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/#comment-47578 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 10:38:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2002/08/open_code_closed_code.html#comment-47578 so Helpful . Fortunate me I discovered your web site…thanks

طراحی سایت

]]>
By: Joe http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/#comment-12238 Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:10:30 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2002/08/open_code_closed_code.html#comment-12238 can open code resolve issues raised by the napster controversy?

]]>
By: Max Dornseif http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/#comment-12237 Mon, 27 Jan 2003 07:09:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2002/08/open_code_closed_code.html#comment-12237 If ‘Open Code = Closed Code’ than cou can’t comply with Non-Disclosure-Agreements which prohibit you from disclosing the knowledge gained in wirting the programm.

E.g. when you want do develop a deriver for special hardware the hardware manufacturer will give you the technical specifications only if you sign a NDA keeping you from giving away the sourcecode of the driver you are developing. This hurts many Freie Software Projects. But if ‘Open Code = Closed Code’ you even can’t give away the binary driver.

]]>
By: spike http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/#comment-12236 Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:15:47 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2002/08/open_code_closed_code.html#comment-12236 I think Sebastien makes a good point that designing the user interface is one of the keys to mass market software success.

Given the difficulty of using copyright to protect user interfaces, I have always expected that there would be more patents relating to user interfaces. I would expect both utility patents and design patents, since it is permissible using design patents to patent software icons.

]]>
By: S�bastien Paquet http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/#comment-12235 Sun, 06 Oct 2002 07:20:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2002/08/open_code_closed_code.html#comment-12235 When you’re writing software for the mass market, the effort goes for the most part into designing the interface, and most of the value is in the interface. Now, hide the code if you will, you can never prevent the features of the interface from being seen, understood, and reused.

]]>
By: Wilmer http://www.lessig.org/2011/10/a-letter-to-the-occupiers-the-principle-of-non-contradiction/#comment-12234 Sat, 14 Sep 2002 03:27:33 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2002/08/open_code_closed_code.html#comment-12234 This perhaps maybe a moot point. I am no super coder myself. I think the point of your friend was to point out that any binary code can be reverse-engineered into some rough semblance of its original self. However, this rough semblance isn’t for the faint of heart to modify. Herein lies the distinction. Open code, is begging to be modified, improved, made for human coder consumption, because it was written by a human. Binary code, reverse engineered by a machine to some modifiable code, will take a buttload of time to understand, and for most intents and purposes, isn’t as open=modifiable as true ‘open’ source. Reverse engineering in this way, isn’t for the faint of heart so I don’t see this avenue for ‘opening’ closed code to stir the embers of some new anti-M$ revolution.

Peace, love and linux(shameless plug)

]]>