Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : mschaef Date : Sun Sep 25 2005 03:06 pm In article <433658fe$0$25464$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Butler wrote: >Perhaps you could give an example of a closed source application that "makes >it a lot more difficult to switch [to another] vendor [compared to the open >source version]" WordPerfect Lotus Notes Visual Basic Office .... What all these have in common is that they're closed source, closed format applications that are used to develop large amounts of 'content'. For example, If I spend $2M developing a system built on VB6, that makes it $2M more difficult to switch away. Office is a bigger example (although I'm not so sure what the impact of Microsoft's XML file formats will be). Every document developed in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. makes it more expensive to switch away to something else. A company can't effectively switch away from Excel and Access without paying the possibly huge costs of reworking all the possibly thousands of little in-house tools developed using those products. >If you get software from a closed source vendor that becomes problematic, >you probably still have the option of moving to another system. Not without facing the costs I mention above. >There are >likely to be very few systems where a transfer of data is impossible. It's not just data: it's logic, training, business processes and dozens of other dependancies on legacy tools built into the organization. > 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. That't the 'free' solution. You can also hire someone to do the work for you. You're not likely to pay for a full development program, but you might well pay for key bug fixes, essential features, etc. > If the project is dormant, you've >now got the problem of finding a developer that can fix the problem If the closed source project is dormant you have no choice at all, except to pay for the costs of a rewrite, or switch, etc. >(at a cost - that's one of the OSS 'community' dogmas, remember) It can be about taking on personal responsibility. If you want a feature or bug fix, you can always take it on yourself or pay someone else to do it. Closed source restricts you to making possibly impotent petitions for help from someone else. -Mike -- http://www.mschaef.com .