In that sense I don't see why people do not moan about having to pay a rent because your tenancy contract that you signed says so...
Long story short, its a right of a SOFTWARE mostly company to protect its software, 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.
So, she's telling legal bullshit just to provoke a fear in people that stops a totally legal practice.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps, but this article appears to be very strong evidence to the contrary.