Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Willem
Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 12:55 pm

Joe wrote:
) "Willem" <willem@stack.nl> wrote in message
)> 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.
)
) Or find a workaround.

Whatever.  With OSS you have the same option.

)> 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.
)
) My original point in this discussion was that the costs of moving to a
) different system may be comparable with fixing the OSS.  So, in the end,
) what would be the more logical choice?  Sticking with an open system that
) may have become dormant, or moving to a newer system (perhaps a closed
) source system that has matured well).

Or to an open source system that has matured well.
Point being, you have an additional choice, that you would
not have had with closed source.

I still have to see a single benefit of closed over open source.
All benefits you have mentioned thus far are not related to
closed-source-ness, and thus apply to OSS just as well.


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

.