angros47

This is not a real problem of open source, imho; even if a lamer changes only the installer of the current program, and starts selling it claiming that it's his work (even if in the executable code there are still references to Piriform), to sue him a lawyer would be needed. I understand your doubts, but I think that a closed source wouldn't be a big defense; maybe it could slow down backspaceware, but nothing more; think about shareware/trialware programs: they are closed, and cracking them is harder than simply changing credits; anyway, most of them have been cracked few weeks after the release. Instead, most of the open source projects do not suffer of backspaceware, even if it's easier to do than cracking a shareware.

Ok: let's say that someone has done backspaceware, and released an "unofficial" version, with fake credits; what could happen? Either: -he won't be able to widely spread the software: he gives it to a few people, and no more; so, he won't harm anyone, and soon he will be forgotten. -he succeeds, and release a program similar to Recuva: soon, someone will notice it, and will tell to Piriform: since the compiled code is nearly identical, Piriform could sue the thief (that will have to pay). The thief, maybe, will try to say that he wrote the program (he has the source code), but Piriform will be able to prove that he lies, because only Piriform has ALL the old versions, the unreleased alpha codes, the discarded pieces....

As I've said, it can be done even without source code (maybe it's even easier than recompile the program), so where is the problem?

I understand, this is the most common objecton against open source. Anyway: - most, if not all, open source licenses state that you have to keep intact the credits: backspaceware is illegal, and Piriform could sue who does it - If the "thief" leaves the program open sourced, even without credits, for Piriform would be easy to recognize the code anyway, and sue him; if the "thief" closes the program and try to sell it, he won't be able to compete with the original, that has the same features, but is free. - actually, backspaceware can be done even witho no source codes, by an hex editor or a program like "resource hacker" - who would be really interested in doing backspaceware? It's not like cracking a trialware, to unlock crippled features. You can already download the full-working program for free, you can use it, you can redistribute it ... what advantage would you gain by removing the credits? Only a lamer could try to steal it, and if he is such a lamer won't go anywhere.

Recuva is a very useful tool; also, as far as I know, it's the only free recovery tool for windows: all competitors offer only crippled trialwares, and it is a nightmere when you have a not working system, and need to download quickly a recovery tool. My suggestion is: since Recuva is already free, why not releasing source code, too? It will have many advantages, IMHO: - some users feel that a freeware is less powerful than a commercial software: instead, an open source tool is perceived as a tool for nerds, really powerful. - an open source Recuva would allow third-party developers to write plugins and extensions: i.e. a plugin to identify and reconstruct a specific file format, or a plugin to work on special devices (like magneto-optical drives) - an open source program would be easily ported on other platforms (Mac, Linux) - with a GPL license, all improvements added by third-party developers have to be GPL, too, so Piriform would be able to integrate the best new features in the official version - An open source Recuva would be listed on all sites promotin free software (and it would be easier to find, since it would be the only easy-to-use recovery tool in its category): that would bring more users to Piriform. - The availability of source code would help many programmers to understand better how file systems and drives work, and that would help all software development In that way, I think that Recuva could become THE recovery tool, and overcome all competitors.