|
|
What is meant by the term open source? (part 2)
Add to 
del.icio.us
 Digg this
January 26, 2009
(Back to page 1.)
Neo-proprietarist: So-called "neo-proprietarists" take open source code, close it, make a few private
changes to it and then turn around and sell it as their own product. Shame on them? Not really. It's
been going on for some time. Remember the end of SCO?
None of the real advantages of using open source is passed on from the neo-proprietarists to the end user,
however.
Mixed source: The so-called "mixed-source model" is really similar to the neo-proprietarists, but
involves the acknowledgment that some open source products are viewed by some in the Linux community as
acceptable while meanwhile suggesting that what you really need is the IT vendor's or IS integrator's own
proprietary software to really do the work that the software was supposed to do in the first place. Not
surprisingly, the mixed source model only works when combined with legal threats and the encumbrance (real
or presumed) of software patents and other legal barriers to its entry if the open source community. Overall,
minimal benefits are passed on to the end user in a "acquire this software now and we'll even include a free
gizmo for free" approach that also perpetuates the mixed-source vendor's propaganda that free software is
not as good as proprietary. It is common for IT vendors that adhere to this business model to use terms
like "certification" and "subscription" to sell the enterprise variant of their product portfolio. But
whatever it's called, in the end, it's really still just a license fee.
SaaS (Software-as-a-service) and that famous cloud: In SaaS, the business model has finally become
IT services-based, where the full economic benefits are delivered to the consumer of the software, in this
case the service provider, and what is passed on to the end customer is the service they are paying for.
To a degree, this model is already successful. Predicted by many to become utterly pervasive, analyst
firm Gartner is now predicting an almost exponential growth in FOSS usage on the back of SaaS.
Pure IT and Web services: The so-called pure IT and Web services model acknowledge that computer and
server hardware are a commodity and thus traded as near as possible to its marginal cost of production.
It also acknowledges that in a really free market, software is at its marginal cost of production, or zero.
(Really?) Unfortunately, and most people will agree that is simply not true at all. The real distinction
is between proprietary and non-proprietary, and here non-proprietary can be just as commercial as proprietary.
In light of all the above, it is suggested that the next time you're evaluating an open source offering,
it might be worth your time in trying to better understand exactly what the IT vendor or that IS system
integrator exactly means by the now broadly used-term "open source".
Also, ask him (or her) exactly how many of the benefits they will really deliver to your company or
opganization.
Source: The Open Source Foundation.
Add to
del.icio.us
Digg this
|
|
