Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Willem
Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 12:36 pm

Joe wrote:
) "Willem" <willem@stack.nl> wrote in message
) news:slrndjd1nf.12bn.willem@toad.stack.nl...
)> 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.

That does not imply that OSS is less 'dumpable' than closed source
software.

Suppose you have a problem with your software, and the software vendor is
in some way unable to help you.

With CSS, you have one option:
   - Switch to a different software.

With OSS, you have more options:
   - Switch to a different software.
   - Have a different vendor support your software.

So, with OSS, you have the same option as with CSS, and *additional*
oprions that you do not have with CSS.  That makes it strictly better.

)> 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?

I'll leave that to others.  To me it's a 'what if'.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

.