Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : mschaef Date : Tue Sep 27 2005 01:05 pm In article <43371662$0$21186$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Butler wrote: ... >> FWIW, Export/Import is one of of the features in Office I use most >> frequently. > >So, how can you say that these apps lock you in? Export/Import works on the data, not necessarily the logic. If I can't reliably export the logic in a file, I still have to pay rework costs. >> >So, if it's cheaper to stick with the product, stick with it. If it's >> >cheaper to switch to an alternative, switch. I can't see the problem. >> >> I don't think there is a problem. > >I thought you were saying that closed source apps effectively locked you in. Yes, and I still say that. I'm not saying that 'closed source is bad' or 'open source is bad'. What I am saying is that both options ought to remain viable since both serve different, and useful, purposes. Businsses and individuals need to make decisions about what's likely to be most cost effective over time. If you don't mind lock-in, then buy closed source. If you value the ability to choose and guarantee continues support, then closed source might not be the best choice. >> I'm not necessarily advocating OSS as the end-all-be-all of software >> licensing. My primary point is that it can offer real advantages to >> people trying to make money. > >Hmmm, seems naive to me - but I'm not an economist. people trying to make money != software company. If I'm a bank developing a website to run my business, I might well be better off with basing it on a open source system I don't have to worry about ending up unsupported and unsupportable. (B/c I can always support it myself if I have to, and it's cost effective) > 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). Sure. If you want to make money selling software then OSS isn't likely to be the right choice for your product's license. (EG: I didn't chose OSS terms for my little shareware tools.) >> It also has costs associated with it, and a >> choice needs to be made, hopefully with as many facts and alternatives as >> possible. > >Agreed. This is probably the crux of where I lie on the issue. Keep both licenses around and let them both compete on their own merits. >> No, basically I'm saying this: "There are advantages to open source >> licenses that need to be considered when making software decisions. The >> world is better off with a choice between OSS and CSS licensing terms." >> >> That's all. > >OK. It didn't really come across like that. Maybe that was down to my own >bias. Yeah, I have my own (somewhat paranoid, in my case) biases too. There are enough stakeholders pushing for signed operating systems and encrypted AV pathways, etc. that I'm worried that 5-10 years from now, Linux won't be able to drive a display or read a DVD (since it's unsigned). These days it's hard enough to find a supported video board onder Linux, but if there are measures taken that require an external authority to sign software to enable it to access specific hardware , it could effectively shut the door on Linux. (Which is something I believe we should avoid.) >I'm not so sure about the long term effect of this. Why would people bother >to study computer science if they know the only job they'll be able to get >is to modify some open source software. Some programers want to do more >than emulate Microsoft's last known Office applications. Have you seen >Office 12 yet? It looks very nice - I can imagine it will work well for a >lot of the less IT literate. Open office is going to look very funky >compared to it. Yeah, Office 12 looks _very_ nice. I'm looking forwards to its arrival. -Mike -- http://www.mschaef.com .