Linux.com

Yes it is safer. The code is out for everyone to see, timings can be checked and defense in court is much easier. Closed code is suspicious by nature and you have to take special measures to prove it is yours. If you go closed source, you essentially agree to protect the code with secrecy only and give up almost any right to accuse others in stealing it. The only case where you have a chance is when you can prove an actual BREAK IN. That is what works in court. Mitnick case showed it. That's why SCO has ZERO chance. That's why Timeline used patents and not copyrights. Software copyrights are perfectly suited for OSS and are very poor protection for closed source. You either go OSS or write some patents because in the closed source world there are LARGE THIEVES armed with spies, technology and whats not... Of course patents are such a mess that cases are very hard, expensive and uncertain. Bad chice IMHO...

#