******"It's intuitively obvious open source is more cost effective and productive than proprietary software," McNealy said. "Open source does not require you to pay a penny to Microsoft or IBM or Oracle or any proprietary vendor any money."
******Scott McNealy said in 2005: "Open source is free like a puppy is free". http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39202713,00.htm
Richard Stallman on Free Software vs Open Source (06/29/08) (paraphrased)
Ernest Park: At the end of the day, free software, OSS, FLOSS, etc - there are a lot of names to describe non-commercial software made available in a framework that encourages participatory development, and a lot of opinions and points of view, many distinct, all personal. I believe that for the moment, we can both agree that our values differ in some specific ways. However, would you mind providing a comment less vague and subjective, focused more on the community acceptance and success of the GPLv3 family of licenses? Richard Stallman: The free software movement is not merely personal. It is a political movement like the environmental movement, the civil rights movement, etc.
You've described the activity using the ideas associated with the term "open source". The free software movement's goal is not even included in that description. Thus, a thoughtful free software supporter knows better than to endorse the way the issue is framed by your site.
Note - The interview above was the result of four rather long emails. The interview was intended for the blog, and the summary above was edited directly from the email exchanges. In practice, what does “Free” in FOSS really mean?
- Low cost, vendor selection, innovation and healthy financially driven competition
- Rapid time to completion – components are readily available for use, also, no licensing cost allows more money to be spent on implementation of existing FOSS technology
- Educated user base – availability across a large user base has created a strong core knowledge in popular projects
- Deferred cost – spend money on management of solution rather than license – lower upfront cost
- Favors rapid innovation – closed source vendors need to capitalize on their investments in proprietary technologies
- Oversight – access to source code allows review of potentially unfavorable technology
******COSS: Sun Microsystems, a strong proponent of FOSS, used the very appropriate term “Commercial Open Source Software” and the largest self-proclaimed contributor to the FOSS community measured in LOC. http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/sunfederal/docs/eval_opensource_dod.pdf
- Vendor support – established engineering and customer support
- Implementation – vendor trained internal and external engineering for solution delivery
- Value added performance and experience – support and upgrade options that deliver value added experience for a fee
- Management – vendor tools, processes and staff to provide long term operations of infrastructure
- Project evolution – vendors grow key projects to meet customer and community needs, and provide support for such innovation
- Responsibility – FOSS licenses absolve the creator from damages tied to use a project. COSS vendors contract to accept such responsibility or mitigate the associated risks
- Protection from single vendor lock-in – offers a viable alternative to entrenched commercial vendors with costly and closed solutions
- Competition – Commercial FOSS offers a HUGE advantage. It allows vendors to compete to deliver solutions working from the same basic origin, where the community and the customer benefit from numerous cost and QOS alternatives
Who wants a free puppy?
This work is licensed under Creative Common By SA 3.0