I understand by now that since the Linux source code is free, users can modify it however they want and to whatever extent they want without violating intellectual property laws. (No?) But am I right in supposing that on a practical level, that's an issue only for people with programming skills? I don't have any, so I couldn't read the code of Linux or any other software, much less modify it. The code being free means no software company lawyers can legally harass me, but would they have otherwise?

newbiesforever> yeah, lawyers would. You should google the history of BSD. I don't really want to go over it here, but Wikipedia does a nice little piece on it that will get you up to speed.

Also, your assertion that it is only useful [on a practical level] for programmers isn't completely accurate. For example, I am not, strictly speaking, enough of a programmer to mess with kernel, driver, etc, coding.... But, I have installed compiz-fusion where metacity had been before. To do this on Windows is *very* rare and much more difficult. That's because linux is open source and windows is closed-source. Trying replacing your gui, in linux: xfce, kde, gnome, etc... Try it in Windows..... Try it in Mac.... OK, that didn't work.

Because everything is open source, changing any one component to something better or different can be precise and not just guess work... An exapmle: look at WINE. Because the duplication of closed-source software takes place, 10 years of the development and compatibility is still not guaranteed.

These are just some examples of where open source code benefits everybody in the long run.

So, I hope that answers the question you asked kinda sideways and indirectly... Yes, lawyers would legally harass people using/distributing/supporting linux if it weren't open source [and free]. Open source is an issue for all computer users and anybody indirectly effected.