Andreas Kostyrka wrote:

> Actually, one can claim, that OpenSource software, through its informal
> peer review process, is less likely to be troublesome, because possible claims
> might already have surfaced with other users. With "closed-source" code,
> (either your own internal code, or thirdparty licensed code. And while
> contracts might protect you somehow, third party "partners", especially
> small and middlesized ones, could always go bankrupt. :( )
> there is no public discussion of possible problems, so all checks rest 100%
> upon your legal department.

Well, with closed-source solutions there is also a bigger chance that the
patent-holder never discovers that the patent is actually infringed. In open
source he/she could just get the code and see for himself, in a closed-source
he/she would have to dig a lot deeper.

I would also argue about the alternatives and how they can't be made safe
either. Curl is one of those programs that can be said to use very
straight-forward solutions with plain school-book programming. If anyone were
to rewrite curl, chances are very high that most of the solutions would be very
similar to the ones already written and thus there would be no gain at all
rewriting it, just a big waste of time.

What if the time and money that would be spent on re-inventing the wheel would
be spent on peer-reviewing the source code and studying existing patents in the
area, wouldn't that more likely be a better investment?

--
 Daniel Stenberg, Software Developer
 Daniel.Stenberg_at_haxx.nu, +46-705-443177, www.contactor.se/~dast
 Swedish geeks unite: http://www.haxx.nu/home/