Open source solutions can sometimes have the same level of 'lock in' as closed-source enterprise solutions.
Most OSS software has a certain degree of 'evil' behind it (particularly as they get older and the community becomes increasingly financially-motivated).
I still think that OSS is better than enterprise software most of the time. At least with open source, you open the door (just a little bit) for others to profit from your work (as you do yourself) - There is some sharing an cross-pollination happening.
For example, I spent 5 years working on my own open source project, now I want to use my OSS project to build an application platform; I'm also going to be using Docker, Kubernetes and Rancher to build it; all of these are open source projects and my platform could not exist without them.
So there is definitely a lot of give-and-take happening in OSS. The real tragedy in open source is that some people are takers only; they keep taking but they never give back. I find this somewhat unethical - Especially coming from big, highly profitable companies.
I think the FSF's GPL strategy is actually a decent solution to prevent people from exploiting OSS for personal financial gain, but unfortunately, it also prevents sharing and cross-polination between projects (with the FSF/GPL approach, the only people who benefit from the software are the users; the makers of the software get NOTHING; this is not very motivating in the long term).
> I agree, open source solutions can sometimes have the same level of 'lock in' as closed-source enterprise solutions.
Not at all. You can always hire someone to update an abandoned software you rely on or help you migrate to another alternative. Lock in would mean you have no such option.
> Most OSS software has a certain degree of 'evil' behind it (particularly as they get older and the community becomes increasingly financially-motivated).
There is nothing wrong in demanding payment. My time certainly isn't free and I will not write code for free unless it solves a problem I also have.
> I still think that OSS is better than enterprise software most of the time.
This distinction doesn't make sense. Until recently I worked for Canonical on MAAS, a physical hardware provisioning tool for data center operations. It's free (AGPL) and you don't get much more enterprise than managing hundreds of servers.
We have to be very precise with the terms we use. There is enough material here to fuel a flame war that'd outlast most stars.
Security issues are now creating a new kind of obsolescence, and therefore sane fears of lock-in (unless you want to spend immense sums keeping software fully up to date.) For example there's advice out there now to strictly avoid the original Open Office because it isn't being kept up, vulnerabilities aren't being discovered and patched. Luckily in that case you can probably jump easily to Libre Office, but that won't always be the case.
I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is that they don't have viable business plans. This is fine if what you are hoping to get out of your project is a hobby. But it's not fine when taken in the context that I think you are using it in (wrt to getting nothing).
I think you are right, in a way, about the GPL. It is great because it pretty much stops anybody from competing against you with your own code. Presumably, you have the advantage since you wrote the code and they can't come in, whack some proprietary lock in code and take all your customers (simultaneously stopping them from migrating to your free platform).
But that doesn't mean you can't make money. The one thing I will say is that the normal technique of "write it and they will come" is not going to work because, why the heck would they pay for something they can get for free? So a reasonable free software business plan is almost always going to involve getting paid up front. Once you understand that point, it's a bit easier to imagine working solutions.
> I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is that they don't have viable business plans. This is fine if what you are hoping to get out of your project is a hobby. But it's not fine when taken in the context that I think you are using it in (wrt to getting nothing).
Especially true with widely used but rarely noticed "infrastructure" projects which provide a high value to many organizations and there should be a high incentive to ensure their continued development and maintenance but not at lot of money or outside contributions reaches them.
I think this was highlighted quite well by the recent awareness of OpenSSL and GPG funding problems. They can at least get some publicity because of the security context. There are heaps of smaller projects which are absolutely critical, arcane and sometimes invisible. The syslinux and pxeboot tools for example.
Most OSS software has a certain degree of 'evil' behind it (particularly as they get older and the community becomes increasingly financially-motivated).
I still think that OSS is better than enterprise software most of the time. At least with open source, you open the door (just a little bit) for others to profit from your work (as you do yourself) - There is some sharing an cross-pollination happening.
For example, I spent 5 years working on my own open source project, now I want to use my OSS project to build an application platform; I'm also going to be using Docker, Kubernetes and Rancher to build it; all of these are open source projects and my platform could not exist without them.
So there is definitely a lot of give-and-take happening in OSS. The real tragedy in open source is that some people are takers only; they keep taking but they never give back. I find this somewhat unethical - Especially coming from big, highly profitable companies.
I think the FSF's GPL strategy is actually a decent solution to prevent people from exploiting OSS for personal financial gain, but unfortunately, it also prevents sharing and cross-polination between projects (with the FSF/GPL approach, the only people who benefit from the software are the users; the makers of the software get NOTHING; this is not very motivating in the long term).