[Ilugc] Is the proprietary camp winning ?
- From: masivakumar@xxxxxxxxx (Sivakumar Ma)
- Date: Sat Oct 14 10:47:33 2006
Abishek,
On 10/14/06, Ingeneur <goda.abishek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not to debate. But give a moment's thought to this. I have a company,
not a software company, say. I need s/w to run my business. In today's
world, I should be outsourcing it to other s/w companies. But I
still have my team of s/w people who work with/interface with the
outsourcing company. If the same code is there in OSS, I can employ my
people to fix/customize the gpl'ed code to my need. Can I not? Will it
not be cheaper than outsourcing? *The dispute is not about outsourcing
being right/wrong*. Then why will the OSS company survive? No, I am
not disputing your idea.
Our point is about developer salaries. Now your company has employed and
paid salaries to s/w people to fix/customize the code.
In a closed source model the money would have been routed through the vendor
of software and that company would have grown monstrous.
Open Source enables everyone to choose how they should run their business
and distributes wealth and business opportunities more evenly. There will be
no hassles about evil/benign monopoly, stiffling of innovation etc.
That will reduce the number of areas you can concentrate as an OSS
company. More people trying to work on lesser areas breeds competition
and some will have to go *evil*? Correct me, if i am wrong.
You need not go to *evil*. You just can not become a Mittal or Bill Gates
and shake billions of dollars at the world. You will be putting your
resources to the best of your abilities for the benefit of your company as
well as the software ecosystem.
2. Now, the company can afford to give away modifications since their
initial investment is low compared to a closed source company.
Isnt this also called forking? Maybe it isnt. I have much lesser
knowledge on this.
If you do not release the code and use it only internally it is allowed
under GPL. If you are going to distrubute it, then the modified source has
to be provided to the buyers of your software, not necessarily RELEASED
PUBLICLY ( to my understanding)
But, since you can not restrict your buyers from distributing what they
received, in effect your code is available to all.
The original project will expect you (not mandatory) to contribute the
changes back to them. Or they can take from the openly available source. If
neither of that happens, then it is forking. There are multiple versions of
same product.
A business failing or being successful depends on many other factors than
whether their model is closed source or open source.
Sure.
Closed source model played its part in evolving software industry. With
the
advent of internet that lost its relevance, and is being slowly replaced
by
the OSS model. This is what I feel.
A very positive analysis and a great one to read.
Thanks. Using the Reiser's arrest to tarnish the OSS business model is a
typical FUD, I feel. They are not related at all. Linus releases his work
under GPL, he is living happily with his family and makes a decent income.
Does it mean that Open Source is good for family life?
Best regards,
Ma Sivakumar
--
Ma Sivakumar,
BSG LeatherLink Pvt Limited,
Chennai.
http://www.leatherlink.net
Other related posts: