Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Joe Butler Date : Mon Sep 26 2005 01:35 am "Willem" wrote in message news:slrndjeb54.anl.willem@toad.stack.nl... > Joe wrote: > ) Good. So, why use an, obviously, propriatary system that has no 3rd-party > ) alternative at all? > > Probably because you asked for examples of closed-source software that > make it difficult or impossible to switch. It's an irrelevant example if there's nothing in extistance to switch to. > > ) So, it was a bit of a red-herring as example go. > > It was an example as examples go. You asked for examples. You got one. > Now you bitch about it. I wouldn't say 'bitch'. I'd say, "question its validity" > > ) I thought you were saying that closed source apps effectively locked you in. > > I don't know what he was saying, but I'm saying that *some* closed source > apps effectively lock you in. And I'm asking for an example of one that locks you in. So far, no one has given a clear example. > > ) Hmmm, seems naive to me - but I'm not an economist. This dogma just doesn't > ) sit well with me. Maybe it's because I'm looking at it from a small > ) business point of view (where I can't convince financiers to fund a > ) multi-million dollar app so that I can give it away for free in the hope > ) that some business model can be found to make money later on). > > How does OSS equate to 'give it away for free' ? It doesn't really. I recon that at least 90% of all OSS is given away for free. So, most of the OSS that people encounter has been given away for free. In fact on the Daily WTF recently there was an example of some badly written open source which was not given away for free. Anyway, I'm not really saying that OSS is better or worse quality-wise - the openness or not of the source probably cannot be used alone as an estimate of the quality of the software. What I'm arguing is that OSS (which is often only considered because it is free cost), is not necessarily the best option in the long run for most people. .