Open Source vs. Commercial Software

[Derek Neighbors]

Kevin wrote:

>Um, wow.  Talk about a total clue-vacuum.  I'm speechless.
>http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=420290&seqNum=1
>
>
>  
>
When someone starts with Open/Free Software vs Commercial Software, it 
isn't even worth exchanging dialog with them.  It is clear from that 
phrase alone they are completely and utterly "out of touch" with the 
basic tenets of our community.  Commerical software implies that 
commerce is taking place, whether it be physical money exchanging hands 
for the software or service or whether it be the software providing 
opportunities for commerce.  There are too many projects to list that 
are free/open that generate income directly or who aid in the propulsion 
of commerce through their use.  The two are not mutually exclusive so 
trying to compare them as such is idiocy at best.

I have long loved Robert Chassell's comment when someone bought a Free 
Software Foundation CD for $250 and a bystander said, "I thought you 
were the FREE software foundation!".  Bob simply stated, "My friend, 
freedom is expensive!".  I had a long phone call with a friend on the 
Ubuntu team the other day trying to work out a VAR distribution deal for 
our company and found myself telling him that if our company wanted to 
continue enjoying the benefits that free software like Ubuntu provides 
our customers we needed to be willing  to find a way to money in their 
hands to continue their efforts.

Authors like that of this article, are so out of touch they are beyond 
help.  They equate software to things of physical production.  If you 
have a sandwich and I eat it, you are out a sandwich.  If you have a 
piece of software/music/video etc and I make a copy are you out your 
software/music/video?  This is just beyond the intellect of some 
people.  The article was a hoot to read though. :)


--
Derek Neighbors