Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

On the osCommerce thread there`s been a lot of discussion about open source which I think needs to be addressed.

The free in open source is about free speech, not the price of the product. It`s about protecting your right to use software the way you want. This is achieved by using a license to make sure you have the right to use to the software in *any* way you want and that no one can take that away from you. The software not costing anything is a side effect (technically you can charge for it).

A phrase often used to describe this is "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer". The difference is often lost but really important.

Free Speech: I sell you a bottle of water for $5 and let you use it any way you want.

Free Beer: I give you a bottle of water at no cost but tell you that you can only drink it between 9.00 and 9.05 on the second blue moon of a year. What if you want to drink it at another time or use it for a different purpose?

Personally I`m a huge fan of open source. If a proprietary application does 95% of what I need I`m at the mercy of the manufacturer to add the remaining 5%. Of course they`re not going to do that unless it`s commercially viable. With open source I can add the 5% myself (or pay someone to do it).


-------------------------

Blog - http://www.buggy.id.au/

Well said - excellent analogy.

Richard, that`s really a superb post!

The huge issue with Microsoft (and other companies) is the trend toward telling you how you can use their software, and then telling you how to use the files you create. It`s almost as if you`re renting your software from them, rather than buying it.

"Ownership" has been defined in many instances as "the ability to sell a thing." But where owning software comes into play is that not only should you be able to sell your copy of Windows XP or Vista (whatever..), you also should be able to sell the results of using that software.

It`s the old free market capitalism versus central control. I believe the Open Source community will prevail. But I also believe it`s part of a fundamental sea change in all of society as we move into the 21st century.

Hi Craig

You`re right about the move to software being rented. Software companies want this because it provides a regular income stream instead of highs around new releases and lows in between.

As I want this thread to be about the positives of open source instead of Microsoft bashing I`ll refrain from taking easy swipes at them.

A related issue is requiring people to register software (especially online) and limiting the number of times it can be used before you do. I noticed a few years ago the maker of my accounting software (not Microsoft) moved to online registration and limiting the number of companies you can use the software for. This raises serious issues like:

1. What happens if the company collapses?
2. What if they change name and domains?
3. What if they are unable to provide me with a registration key?
4. What if they refuse to provide me with a registration key?

When I was a Windows user I found myself reinstalling my computer every 6-9 months. This potentially means I could find myself unable to use software I had legally purchased.

All of this isn`t an issue with Open Source :)


-------------------------

Blog - http://www.buggy.id.au/

There is another huge benefit to open source software: Support.

Support from commercial entities is limited to whether they are making enough money from product sales to enable a decent support system. And you are still limited to one source for support and it`s not always included with the price of the product.

With open source, especially popular projects, you have the community to serve you.  People seem very willing to help.  Like the old barn raising scenario, except that people can help you on their own time.  Most if not all popular open source projects have some sort of community forum or wiki.

I have participated in so many of these projects, providing advice when I know the answer and getting questions answered when I don`t.  It`s not strictly related to development efforts either. The best communities have huge user communities that are just users helping other users.

The Cathedral and the Bazaar is interesting reading for anyone who wants some additional information on how this all came about and why it works.  Rhichard Stallman is pretty much given credit as the godfather of open source .  The book  is written by Eric S. Raymond.

This book delves deeply into the reason why open source evolved and why it works. It provides concrete economic theory and plenty of background on why the os method works for large complex pieces of software.

marklosey - excellent post. I loved the "old barn raising" bit - SO TRUE! It`s why SUN can exist and thrive, too .... same model!

I was reading about the new "upgrade insurance" policy Microsoft is implementing, where (I think?) you now have to pay full price for an upgrade, even if it`s mostly a patch. If you have the insurance, though, you pay a discounted amount. I may be wrong on the details of what constitutes an update, but the insurance is problematic.

From what I`ve seen, with Open Source having such a general or wide-spread support, updates and repairs have no charge. More importantly, it seems if someone reports a bug in an OS application, it gets addressed and fixed a whole lot faster.

Then there are things like extensions (e.g., Firefox), where if I personally wish there was a different way to do something, the odds are someone else feels the same and wrote an add-on extension to allow the capability.

I don`t think that sort of dynamic interaction with the end-user population can happen with commercial software. At least I haven`t seen it before.

The idea too is that you don`t have to wait for the company to write a patch or update. Either someone else wrote it, or you can write it yourself. 

Yah...egg zackly. :-)

I find it interesting that many open source people complain about licensing terms or attempts by software developers to protect their intellectual property. How do most web developers feel when the client doesn`t want to pay for services rendered or suggests an exchange of "free promotion" in exchange for a "free website".

Personally I love watching the open source movement talk about the need to destroy the proprietary models that built the computer industry. Good luck!

Everyone deserves a fair wage for their work. Period.

If you don`t like the license agreement, don`t license the software. Or, write a better version and release it as open source. But really, I think if you aren`t willing to write an accounting program and release it as open source, then don`t complain about someone who is kind enough to write an accounting program ... even if it`s proprietary. That is the point where you should keep your teeth tightly pressed together so you tongue and lips cannot move and give birth to uninformed statements.

Please be fair and balanced if you discuss Eric Raymond. Tell the SUN members here that he is regarded as insane by a good sized chunk of the open source movement. This isn`t Fox News.