Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Joe Butler
Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 01:24 pm


"Willem" <willem@stack.nl> wrote in message
news:slrndjd1nf.12bn.willem@toad.stack.nl...
> Joe wrote:
> ) If you get software from a closed source vendor that becomes
problematic,
> ) you probably still have the option of moving to another system.  There
are
> ) likely to be very few systems where a transfer of data is impossible.
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.  If the project is dormant,
you've
> ) now got the problem of finding a developer that can fix the problem (at
a
> ) cost - that's one of the OSS 'community' dogmas, remember) - perhaps the
> ) company with the problem don't have the source to the version they are
> ) using, perhaps they've already had some mods made that are now lost, not
> ) spec'd out and would need to be re-implemented if the baseline source
could
> ) even be located via some Internet archive.
>
> Why would you 'still have the option of moving to another system' in
closed
> source software, but not in open source software ?
>

Because one of the points that many people are making is that OSS can be
fixed by the user - the implication being that if it does not work, it can
be fixed.  I don't think I've ever seen anyone saying, "A good reason to use
OSS is because you can dump it if it fails to work for you".  Rember, we
were discussing being locked into a vendor's system.  You'll have the same
problems with OSS in your counter example.

> And what if you have closed source, and do not have that option ?

As I said, could you give an example of a closed source system where this is
likely to be the case?

.