> open source is not always the solution and reverse engineering something, consumes way more energy for the problems it actually solves.

You think customers are reverse engineering Oracle products for fun? They're doing it because there's a problem somewhere, they've filed a bug report and not got a satisfactory result, and so they have to go pay an expensive consultant to try and track down the problem for them with no source code.

Even if none of the other arguments for open source were persuasive, this situation with Oracle alone would be enough to convince many people of the wisdom of choosing an open source vendor.

What's wrong with reversing for fun? It's how progress of technology happens.

I think reversing for fun is great! But it's pretty unlikely that Oracle customers are doing it for this reason. Instead, I suspect their reversing is borne of desperation.

Your boss is unlikely to pay you for it. The companies using Oracle software are usually not in software (database) development themselves, so there's no business incentive to pay you for having "fun" with expensive software.

We are mad because for over 500 million Europeans Contracts can not restrict the basic right of decompiling.

So, she's telling legal bullshit just to provoke a fear in people that stops a totally legal practice.

> its a right of a SOFTWARE mostly company to protect its software

They also have a duty of care to their clients

> open source is not always the solution

No one saying it is. Plenty of other proprietary software vendors protect their softwaqre in customer-friendly ways.

> reverse engineering something, consumes way more energy for the problems it actually solves

When a vendor like Oracle gives you no other option to solve the very real problems that your company has with the software, the "energy consumption" can be more than worth it, even it wasn't the ideal path in the first place.

I'm surprised to see the "no one is saying it is" in this context. You don't have to look far on HN to find considerable numbers of people expressing categorical opposition to proprietary software licensing, although it remains a minority view here.

Because the post very clearly makes reverse engineering out to be an inherently terrible thing, when the alternative is basically see-no-evil.

And so are you. Not paying is inherently wrong. This is an arbitrary rule more akin to "no looking out the east window".

Trying to sell something to be used but not understood is a fool's errand.

A software maker has no particular right to control what I do with that software once I have it.

In terms of a rental agreement, a "no reverse engineering" clause is not equivalent to "you must pay rent." It's more like a clause that says you're not allowed to consume meat while you live there because the landlord is a vegetarian.

> open source is not always the solution

Perhaps, but this article appears to be very strong evidence to the contrary.