Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

In article <433658fe$0$25464$db0fefd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Joe Butler <ffffh.no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Perhaps you could give an example of a closed source application that "makes
>it a lot more difficult to switch [to another] vendor [compared to the open
>source version]"

WordPerfect
Lotus Notes
Visual Basic
Office
....

What all these have in common is that they're closed source, closed format
applications that are used to develop large amounts of 'content'. For
example, If I spend $2M developing a system built on VB6, that makes it
$2M more difficult to switch away. Office is a bigger example (although
I'm not so sure what the impact of Microsoft's XML file formats will be).
Every document developed in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. makes it more
expensive to switch away to something else. A company can't effectively
switch away from Excel and Access without paying the possibly huge costs
of reworking all the possibly thousands of little in-house tools developed
using those products.

>If you get software from a closed source vendor that becomes problematic,
>you probably still have the option of moving to another system.

Not without facing the costs I mention above.

>There are
>likely to be very few systems where a transfer of data is impossible.

It's not just data: it's logic, training, business processes and dozens of
other dependancies on legacy tools built into the organization.

> If,
>instead, you are using an open source system that becomes a major problem,
>you are now reliant on the 'community' still being around and giving your
>problem a high priority on the fix list.

That't the 'free' solution. You can also hire someone to do the work for
you.

You're not likely to pay for a full development program, but you might
well pay for key bug fixes, essential features, etc.

> If the project is dormant, you've
>now got the problem of finding a developer that can fix the problem

If the closed source project is dormant you have no choice at all, except
to pay for the costs of a rewrite, or switch, etc.

>(at a cost - that's one of the OSS 'community' dogmas, remember)

It can be about taking on personal responsibility. If you want a feature
or bug fix, you can always take it on yourself or pay someone else to do
it. Closed source restricts you to making possibly impotent petitions for
help from someone else.

-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... The Office file format is publicly available from Microsoft. ... > What all these have in common is that they're closed source, ... > expensive to switch away to something else. ... > well pay for key bug fixes, essential features, etc. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >the author allows someone to make money, ... >pretending that it's open source in the process, ... >> long as the market will pay the costs. ... >> There's nothing legally that keeps OSS and Closed Source from ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: DO NOT USE JAVA BECAUSE IT IS NOT OPEN SOURCE
    ... closed source software could guarantee performance. ... will pay your IRS fees, interest, and penalties. ... you put out a bounty for it (e.g. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Activation - fun and games for the whole family
    ... or accept that that's whole the closed source ... I prefer to pay. ... But the hardware configuration locked activation schemes is ... altogether stopped upgrading/buying/using software that uses such techniques ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Fix for wrong OOM killer trigger?
    ... Larry didn't show anything related to whether closed source is bad or not, ... he simply tried to explain that someone has to PAY to host all those gateways ... subject of permanent complaints, or he will finally stop paying for those. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)