Robert Pogson

A good article at Linuxinsider.com begins with

“Linux has proven that the open source  open source model works — it addresses two of the biggest challenges for IT professionals: the high cost of infrastructure software and the limitations a closed stack imposes on the enterprise. Open source is particularly appealing for the following reasons:

* Cost savings — Users do not pay a license fee to adopt open source software nor do they pay for updates, eliminating the large upfront cost typically associated with infrastructure development and significantly reducing the total cost of the project.

* Vendor neutrality — Open source software is developed and owned by the community. Users of the project are not locked in to a vendor’s platform and are not forced to buy proprietary modules or adopt prerequisite technology.”

* Access to source code — By definition, open source projects make the source code available. This allows enterprises to inspect the code for safety, edit the code to add unique features, and not be at the mercy of a vendor.

* Innovation — With a large community that includes end users contributing to the project, open source software has proven itself to be a practical vehicle for the latest technological advancements.”

Deborah Moynihan comes close but seems to circle around one of my favourite advantages of FLOSS: flexibility.  While all of her major points are fallout of flexibility, she does not seem to see the crater flexibility creates. One starts any software project by collecting ideas and resources. If one decides to use “proprietary”/non-free software, one has to dig that big hole with a teaspoon rather than with an explosive. This is expensive, locks one in, does not give access to source and stifles innovation. The non-free licences usually place so many restrictions that the project is no longer your own. FLOSS on the other hand moves a mountain for you and all you have to do is the landscaping, adding a few features and concentrating on what you want your software and your computers to do, a much better use of your resources. All the little negatives she does bring out, like the viral nature of FLOSS, pale in comparison to the value of flexibility. One needs lawyers to review non-free licences as well as FLOSS, but FLOSS gives lawyers much less work because the GPL has been designed by lawyers to do the things FLOSS needs doing, including providing flexibility to developers and end-users.

If one can find tons of software with licence lawyers and developers love, many obstacles to software development evaporate. Those who insist on the “proprietary” model for everything are making themselves into dinosaurs very rapidly. Re-inventing the wheel or paying someone to do that is really stupid and expensive.