[nylug-talk] open source/closed source

[Joshua Zeidner]

On 3/1/07, Paul Robbins <robbins.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me preface my post with the following line. I hope this is the right
> forum for such a question and I do not intend to start a flame war.
>
> In looking at OSS and the future of applications on Linux, I am interested
> in finding out opinions or facts about open source software and companies
> who write closed source software.  The wheel began spinning on this topic
> when I started looking at options for filing my tax return.  I decided to
> look into a software product, such as Turbo Tax.  We run Linux on all
> systems in my apartment, so trying to find a viable solution became a
> problem. We do not run Windows, so how do we go about finding the software
> app we want. Of course I will mess with WINE and other tools, that is not
> the point of this post. The point is to ask about acceptance and possibility
> of software for Linux.  If the makers of a product like Turbo Tax decided
> they wanted to make a version for Linux, would it have to be open source?
> My initial thought is no, since I think other software products are
> available for Linux for a fee.  But is that fee just for support, or for the
> boxed software?  If a vendor can technically sell COTS software for Linux,
> how would the community react?  I would assume someone like RMS wouldn't
> like the concept, but is it a possibility?  I very much enjoy my linux
> systems and have even gotten my wife to completely switch at home, but there
> are still a few things she has to do on her work PC that she cannot do on
> Linux.  I think many of those issue would be resolved if a company wrote
> their package for Linux as well. But what are the barriers to that taking
> place? Would the community "force" that product to be open source? I think
> that fear has some impact on the lack of options for software on Linux.
> Could EA Sports create a Linux version of one of they games and sell it
> closed, or would all of that have to be opened (either legally or by
> community pressure)?

   There are quite a few packages that are distributed in binary
format( eg. Java ).  I can't really think of any off the top of my
head that charge to do so.  This problem has been thoroughly
considered by the large companies such as IBM.  Typically BSD
licensing is friendly to this sort of behavior while GPL is not.

>
> I know there are some in the LUG that probably disagree with the question
> all together because they feel all code should be open.

  To be completely frank, I feel that a lot of Linux people hold to
the Open Source credo, not because they believe it can foster quality
software, but because they just simply do not value software.  A
disproportionate number of Linux people come from a hardware
background and view software and its licensing as problematic to the
value they see in the physical device( see: Widget Frosting ).

>  If that is the
> case, what options are available for a company to make money off of open
> source code.  I know the currently models say that support or dual licensing
> is the key, and for many products, that is very true. But take the two
> examples I mentioned above. If Turbo Tax created an open source Linux
> version, how much would they really make in support. I would assume that the
> company currently does not receive a lot of calls from Windows customers
> about help with installation or support (maybe I am wrong).  Or the game
> company.  What need would their be for a dual license? Who really would want
> to extend a football game?
>
> I know this post may seem to be all over the place, so i apologize about the
> lack of structure. As someone who would like to see the option of a Linux
> based system increase, I would like to see what others feel like the future
> of software products for Linux is/will be.

  Remember though that many businesses have been built on Open
Standards.  Had it not been for the freely available TCP-IP/Ethernet
standard developed by DARPA, the internet would never have come
together( can you imagine a Novell WAN? ).  Paradoxically, Microsoft's
business greatly relied on hardware standards that had emerged from
the once highly guarded terrain of computer architecture( this was due
in part to cooperation by nascent Asian hardware providers ).  Just as
the old UNIX houses feared open standards in hardware, Microsoft
greatly fears open software standards that will decentralize their
business.  History repeats itself if you read it correctly.

  -jmz

>
> Thanks for any insight.
>
> ~Paul
>

-- 

( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner at gmail.com