My view on proprietary vs opensource software

October 03, 2007

Everyone knows I’m not a fundamentalist and I’ve been contributing to Opensource. I believe both OpenSource and Proprietary Software should co-exist. However I do not believe in Free Software (as described by Richard Stallman), he thinks all software should provide the users the freedom to use it, to edit it and to share it.

Well, let’s imagine I own a software house and I make this applications with this incredible algorithm. I spent one year paying for developers to study and come up with my product. I would want to make it profitable, so I have to sell it as a closed-source product. If someone needs this special feature, or improvement, I would be happily to sell a special version to them. That’s the way of making enough money to cover for the investment. If I had released it in opensource, I could have saved 75% of the time with external help from other programmers, but I wouldn’t make enough money, because some other company that had better implementation in the market would sell the service of setting up my application, and custom modifications. I wouldn’t like that.

Let’s make this analogy: when you go to the restaurant, you pay for the meal you have. Let’s imagine ti was a OpenSource Restaurant. You would choose from the menu, enter in the kitchen, see them cooking your meal, change the ingredients if you want. You might want to chop something for yourself, for example. You would pay just for the time it took for the cookers to prepare it, eat and take the recipe with you back home. Well this doesn’t happen. If this fancy restaurant has this fabulous dish and it’s the reason everyone goes there, they wouldn’t share the recipe with no other restaurant. Same happens with software code.

However I do believe in OpenSource in some situations: In education, mainly in the informatics field: you need to know how some kind of software works, and OpenSource gives you that power, which is very important when you are learning something that program has. And if OpenSource software exists already, why not use it? It’s a good deal software for free.

But if you demand a good support, you should think twice. Imagine a program that does something very specific this one guy has ever coded, and only a bunch of people use it. You need it for your enterprise, and you install it. Well if it has a bug and the developer has retired or has this awesome job and don’t care about it anymore? Hiring a company to guarantee the software quality wouldn’t sound so bad after all.

Another example where Free Software might probably fail: games. If games were opensource, the best players would be programmers that read the code (or change it) and hack into it, not those with gaming skills. The good thing about games is the difficulty it has to go to the next level. If it’s as easy as to change one number in the source code, It would not be fun as it is. But what about game platforms, they can be opensource right?

Yes, I believe opensource platforms are better than closed ones, because they allow people who program on top of it to know how it works better and use it’s full potential. Guess what, seems like Microsoft thought the same and they are sharing .NET source code!

Well this is my opinion on this issue, and I’m glad Microsoft is thinking in the same way. It makes me really happy about going tomorrow to the Microsoft Student Partner Program Launch Event as one of them :)

Tagged with: en, microsoft, opensource
This post has 19 comments. Feel free to read them and leave your own.
Vemo-nos em Lisboa amanhã :P E logo discutimos isto... :D
This discussion about open vs closed source was old 10 years ago!

Maybe closed is better for your *incredible algorithms* that you will sell two one or two persons in the whole world, but maybe not for developing many things that *most people need*.

Go develop something like Linux, Apache, Kde, Firefox on your own. Either you build on Open Source or you need a huge team to code from scratch, what was already done.

And yes... Microsoft is *sharing* .NET source code? Under a license that will make it useful for building on it?

Ahhhh the beautiful inocence....
<blockquote>That’s the way of making enough money to cover for the investment.</blockquote>
I wonder when will Microsoft make enough money to cover their investments so that they can offer competitive prices for their products.


Anyway, I think your analogy is flawed, because whatever you do, you will only do it if you want to do it. You will only be good at it if you enjoy it, and you will always have to spend time to accomplish something.
Altho the recepies thing might apply for (for example) pagerank it really isn't rocket science for maybe 99% of software.

Just because people have the recepie and ingredients, it doesn't mean they want to spend time cooking, learning and perfecting it. And if you want something different you will again have to waste more time learning and perfecting. It is not as easy as one might think, and this is why people specialize in one or two areas. You can't make everything by yourself.


As for Open Source vs Proprietary, someone at Microsoft said there is no such thing as free software, and this is partialy true. The reason is there are people who are paid to develop software such as ubuntu, open office, firefox, eclipse, sugar crm, mysql and so on.. The companies that develop the software just have different revenue sources, and maybe have a more realistic profit margin than Microsoft for example.

Also, I think that every project is a different project, and that the decision of open source or proprietary should be based on the project itself, and not just because proprietary is this an open source is that.
There are a lot of business models around open source software. It's obviously not as profitable as closed/proprietary. I think what a lot of "free" advocates would argue is that free software is much more valuable to end users because of its transparency. The truth is that its more valuable to some people.

For example, if you're a company needing a web server, you get a lot of extra value out of Apache httpd being open source. Not only do you have the code that you could muck with, but there's a whole community of people with the code that you can draw upon.

If I'm buying a laptop computer, I'm probably not going to get as much value out of an open source operating system. The things that add value in the above case are not applicable. Why? Because if I need to muck around with the OS, then the OS is a poor choice.

Just keep in mind the end user's perspective. There is already enough useless software in this world.
Michael, I totally agree with you. If companies choose to do opensource software and it fits our needs, we should use it over proprietary (most of the times) because it comes with the source code!

But for example, I can make a deal with some company paying them for some program and it's source code. If they accept it, it's ok. If they don't, well we'll have to live with that, we can't make people share their business secrets like when you buy a car, you don't buy its plans and factory details. It's something they don't want you to have.

As for the end user, the majority of people don't care if something is or isn't opensource. Maybe they will like the free (as in $0.00) but they don't have the coding skills (or time) to change the code improving or customizing for their needs.

As for the .NET code released, If I were Microsoft I'd do the same. I'd let developers see the framework code in order for them to make better implementations on the platform, but I wouldn't let go of my code ownership. I wouldn't like to see some company releasing ".WEB 4"...
Quote: <i>"Well, let’s imagine I own a software house and I make this applications with this incredible algorithm. I spent one year paying for developers to study and come up with my product. I would want to make it profitable, so I have to sell it as a closed-source product. If someone needs this special feature, or improvement, I would be happily to sell a special version to them. That’s the way of making enough money to cover for the investment. If I had released it in opensource, I could have saved 75% of the time with external help from other programmers, but I wouldn’t make enough money, because some other company that had better implementation in the market would sell the service of setting up my application, and custom modifications. I wouldn’t like that."</i>

Like GSP said above, if your magic algorithm is to be used by half a dozen people, no one cares if it's open-source or not. If it's used by more people, you don't need to close source it. Just use the proper tools at the right time: patents!

Patent the algorithm (if it's really something magic and new), launch the code as open source (the patent will describe the algorithm anyway), and make a clear statement that you licence the patent for free for non-comercial use. This way the community wins something (they will complain anyway, but that's life), and you win as you won't have any competition for a while.
Microsoft is *not* sharing anything. You can't use their code for anything useful! That's not Open Source...
I couldn't agree more with you.
Generic (open source) and Non-generic pharmaceutics products is another cool analogy to defend your point of view
On patents, I agree with you José, but while in pharmaceutics you have 20 (?) years to get the money from your patent, before it goes "opensource"/generic, in informatics field it should be less, because everyone knows informatics evolve a lot more faster.
Alcides, cresce ...
Your expression of Microsoft's talking points is so disgusting I've had to vomit a lengthy rebute to your trash talk.

You are clearly a Microsoft Lover who was *bought* by Microsoft.
Like someone said, this discussion is 10 years old, and it will be as old as the IT will exist.

the bottom line is, respect, respect others opinions, just because im a MSFT lover doesnt make me a bad person and/or my opinions worthless.
when will you learn that....?
João Viegas: being an MS lover is not fundamentally different than being a crack addict.

Each time you exchange a document in a proprietary format, you're playing the role of a dealer.

The proprietary model does not respect people and their rights, so each time you defend it, you're attacking man kind.
Rui, eu compreendo o teu "apego" a tudo o que é aberto e livre, mas precisas de nos teus posts e comentários seres sempre ofensivo para fazer valer os teus argumentos? Será que és assim igualmente no mundo real, ou este "escudo virtual" que é a web, faz de ti uma pessoa diferente?
Carlos Serrão, pelas palavras proferidas sou apartir de hoje fã da sua pessoa.
Rui, em resposta ao teu último comentário, vou transmitir-te um bocadinho do que aprendi na aula de Comunicação Técnica a que assisti.

A comunicação tem diversos componentes: o emissor, o receptor, a mensagem, o código, o contexto e o canal (adicionalmente poderá incluir-se o ruído).

Uma boa comunicação acontece quando o receptor entende uma grande parte do que o emissor pretendia transmitir. Obviamente que para tal, deve ser usado o canal e o código mais apropriados.

Ora eu quando pretendo enviar um cartaz para a gráfica com quem trabalho, envio usando o formado PSD pois para além de o usar para fazer o dito cartaz, sei que eles também trabalham com ele e lhes facilita o trabalho caso seja necessário fazer alguma alteração.

Isto não me parece um atentado aos direitos de ninguém...

Outro exemplo: se duas empresas usam o Microsoft Word (sei que consideras um crime só por si usar software proprietário, ainda por cima desta empresa, mas vamos admitir que a situação existe) trocam ficheiros em formato doc (ou docx) se calhar é porque é o formato que mais convém a ambas. Mais uma vez não me parece incorrecto.

No entanto acho que a nível do governo, ou quando se lança um ficheiro para um público geral, se devam usar formatos abertos, pelo que apoio a acção da ANSOL em implementar os formatos abertos na assembleia da república.

(oops, thanks to Carlos, this comment was written in portuguese)
conivente, ponto final.
Sobre os argumentos do post, que demonstram uma grande confusão sobre o que é software livre, software proprietário, open source, modelos de negócio e afins, não há muito a dizer: claramente estás a debitar coisas sem saber bem de que estás a falar. Lê mais umas coisitas, esclarece bem as tuas ideias e depois escreve algo com pés e cabeça... Podes aproveitar, por exemplo, para ler o artigo que o Rui comentou, que tem pontos bem válidos em relação às falhas da tua argumentação.

Quanto aos comentários, que me fazem também a mim comentar, estou genuinamente chocado em ver aqui defensores das patentes de software: conceito ridículo e que não devia existir. Sobre esse assunto, recomendo-te que vejas isto e que depois formes a tua própria ideia.
"João Viegas: being an MS lover is not fundamentally different than being a crack addict. "

Spare me the cliche, that line is used from ages by 12 year old kids.
If you want to help open source community, start to argument like a man.

Comment:

Author:
Email:
Website:
Comment:

About

I used to write in this blog, but I've found a better format to express myself. From now on, you may read my writings on ideas, programming and politics on my new wiki.

hCard

Name: Alcides Fonseca
Email:
MSN:
Gtalk:
Nov 24, 1988 40.197958, -8.408312

Tagcloud

Archives

Other links