What Does Open Systems Mean?
All Open System software is not the same. There are number of different licensing models allowing different rights. May people equate Open System with free…but that is not necessarily true.
One thing (I think) Open System software has in common is that the source code is available. Different licenses may allow you to contribute to that code base. Others allow you to use it, even modify it…but you are not really a contributor to that source.
I have seen some open software in which base features are available at no cost. Fuller features require a purchase. In either scenario, the source code was available.
Just because you have access to the source code does not make software open. That’s just to add to the confusion about the concept.
Kevin Writes:
In some respects, this is a silly question? The term open source is used more as a euphemism for free these days – at least with respect to the actual product. This trend has been going on for quite some time. You just have to see the issue from slightly different perspective to get my point.
Remember when we all paid for language compilers in order to learn how to program? First the prices dropped (TurboPascal). What followed? Languages became free and we either paid for a good IDE or the occasional support license.
The same process occurred with certain applications. In the database world, Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM charge hefty prices for their enterprise licenses. Some of them used to charge for student and developer licenses as well. Not anymore. Now all three vendors even provide free student, developer, and (small scale) production products. Now if you need to expand the database footprint (or require more responsive support services) you now have to pay a significant premium.
My point is that vendors have been moving away from (technically) charging for the actual product towards a model that charges for features and support. This is essentially the open source model: don’t charge for the product, but it is OK to charge for service. Now it is prudent to evaluate the support provided for the product of interest, but this is true of commercial vendors as well. Ingres was a top-tier database vendor, but most people left the product after CA bought the company.
We all use open source or free products every day: Putty, gzip, Zip, Java, Javascript, Eclipse, Express (software editions), etc. When companies say that they don’t want to use open source products, they are usually discussing a specific product – and trying to avoid change (in some cases.)
Well, now you have more confusion than before you started reading this newsletter. If you want to add clarifications drop me a note at btaylor@sswug.org.
Cheers,
Ben
What Does Open Systems Mean?
All Open System software is not the same. There are number of different licensing models allowing different rights. May people equate Open System with free…but that is not necessarily true.
One thing (I think) Open System software has in common is that the source code is available. Different licenses may allow you to contribute to that code base. Others allow you to use it, even modify it…but you are not really a contributor to that source.
I have seen some open software in which base features are available at no cost. Fuller features require a purchase. In either scenario, the source code was available.
Just because you have access to the source code does not make software open. That’s just to add to the confusion about the concept.
Kevin Writes:
In some respects, this is a silly question? The term open source is used more as a euphemism for free these days – at least with respect to the actual product. This trend has been going on for quite some time. You just have to see the issue from slightly different perspective to get my point.
Remember when we all paid for language compilers in order to learn how to program? First the prices dropped (TurboPascal). What followed? Languages became free and we either paid for a good IDE or the occasional support license.
The same process occurred with certain applications. In the database world, Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM charge hefty prices for their enterprise licenses. Some of them used to charge for student and developer licenses as well. Not anymore. Now all three vendors even provide free student, developer, and (small scale) production products. Now if you need to expand the database footprint (or require more responsive support services) you now have to pay a significant premium.
My point is that vendors have been moving away from (technically) charging for the actual product towards a model that charges for features and support. This is essentially the open source model: don’t charge for the product, but it is OK to charge for service. Now it is prudent to evaluate the support provided for the product of interest, but this is true of commercial vendors as well. Ingres was a top-tier database vendor, but most people left the product after CA bought the company.
We all use open source or free products every day: Putty, gzip, Zip, Java, Javascript, Eclipse, Express (software editions), etc. When companies say that they don’t want to use open source products, they are usually discussing a specific product – and trying to avoid change (in some cases.)
Well, now you have more confusion than before you started reading this newsletter. If you want to add clarifications drop me a note at btaylor@sswug.org.
Cheers,
Ben
$$SWYNK$$
Featured White Paper(s)
Optimize SharePoint Storage with BLOB Externalization
Written by AvePoint
This document is intended to provide a comprehensive an… (read more)
Featured Script
dba3_TableVariableJoin_Demo.sql
Example for post question A1 http://bitonthewire.wpengine.com/forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2516… (read more)