[wplug] Open Source vs Closed Source Economics

[Brandon Kuczenski]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Greg Simkins wrote:

> For those who already subscribe to ZDNet, you may have already seen this link, but I think the type of thoughtful analysis in the linked article is so much more helpful than the doctrinaire approach of RMS:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=1265&tag=nl.e539
>
>

Greenspun says: "Greenspun: No, because if it's closed source, they can't 
just download the TAR file and have their IT people make the needed 
changes. They have to go to you to make the customizations. "
...

That's exactly the point.  I'm certainly not an open-source advocate 
because it's good for venture capitalists, but because it's good for 
users.

Greenspun also says: "So, in other words, open source is great for 
unsolved problems that people don't understand very well. An open source 
word processor is not very interesting because the word processor was 
invented in the 60s by IBM and pretty much most people now agree on what a 
word processor should have. The newer the business problem, the more 
imperative it is that the solution be open-sourced so that the customer 
can tweak and extend that system."

But if that model is followed, then either the project source will have to 
BECOME closed at a later date, or the open-source community will inherit 
the project when it is mature.

The genius of open source is that no work has to ever be duplicated. 
Businesses that want to make money by forcing their customers to duplicate 
work are, I'm sorry to say, market inefficiencies.

Business perspective != economics perspective.

-Brandon