Comments on: How Open Source can be a Game Changer

By: Ashley

Ashley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:47:02 +0000

The more software companies focused on making money I see the more closed source centric are.

When I read the phrase “Download Evaluation” alongside “Open Source” words I can’t avoid to smile. Open Source usually means “Free of Distribution”.

In my opinion Dual Licensing should be the path to make business with software and remain Open Source, otherwise we probably are going to see our calculator program defined as Software As A Service.

By: Sébastien

Sébastien — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:28:15 +0000

I totally agree, but the problem is that in this article I’m focusing on Open Source in a corporate environment, and in my experience, most corporate users use Open Source software… because it’s free. Of course, developers also like open source tools because they know that with the community and all, it’s easy to get support, and even to fix bugs quickly if they can. But try saying to your boss that such Open Source tool is cool because you can disclose corporate information on public forums while asking questions and you can spend company time improving an external product. Few companies understand more than the “freeware” aspect of Open Source, that there are other interests in openness.

And yes, maybe there is one other aspect that they do understand: Open Source licenses and the vast community that potentially goes with OSS is a guarantee of maturity and durability, which cannot be associated with freeware. Not enough IMO.

By: Ross Duggan

Ross Duggan — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:06:45 +0000

It seems like you’re mostly describing the benefits of “freeware” generally as opposed to (necessarily) open source software.

While there are overlaps, such as those you’re describing, I think it’s too common a misconception that “open source” simply means “does not cost money”, and that’s the only aspect this post seems to convey, imo.