Is Open Source Different In Europe Than In the US? 399
An anonymous reader writes "The first Europe Open Source Think Tank just concluded and Larry Augustin posted some interesting observations on open source in Europe versus the US. Essentially, he says that users in Europe care more about the open source nature of a product than do US users. US users are just trying to save a buck while European users actually care about access to the source code. Do Slashdot readers observe the same thing? Are the reasons for using open source software different in other parts of the world as well?"
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Primary reason for adopting Open Source:
-(Europe) Avoid vendor lock-in.
-(US) Cost.
Key driver of commercial Open source business creation:
-(Europe) Creation of a local software industry.
-(US) Venture capital/entrepreneur-driven to create big business and make money for investors.
Dual licensing business models.:
-(Europe) Not true open source. Proprietary business models using Open Source for PR and marketing.
-(US) Widely accepted as the most common Open Source business mode
Software sales model.:
-(Europe) Channel oriented: VARs and SIs.
-(US) Direct.
Open Source business models.:
-(Europe) Service and support subscription focused; 100% open source software.
-(US) Don't want to be in services business. The focus is on products, typically proprietary add-ons or an Enterprise Edition paired with an Open Source product edition.
Expectations around "Open Source" products:
-(Europe) All code is available under Open Source. There is often a community governance of community participation model.
-(US) Same, but not necessarily all products are available under an Open Source license. Commercially licensed versions of the products are commonly available. Projects are managed by a commercial vendor.
...and the best reason for using open source anywhere: Not having to worry about those pesky BSA raids [screaming-penguin.com]!
3rd choice not offered? (Score:1, Informative)
I think the third reason is that we just want the software to work. that partly negates FOSS only software or being completely engrossed in FOSS only ideas. Just an opinion from someone who likes Linux a lot but needs functionality to be supreme over free only...
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Also from TFA:
This isn't a scientific survey, but reflects opinions I heard consistently from multiple people over the two days of the conference:
I have a salt shaker if you'd like a grain with that.
Re:Get real (Score:5, Informative)
Are you sure about that? Can you substantiate that claim with some numbers and quote a source?
In the 80's you saw a lot of creative programming come out of the Eastern Block, from what then still were Soviet satellite states. They had to squeeze all the functionality they could get out of bad/cheap/old hardware and therefore made software on a shoestring budget that really did interesting things. To this day you have very decent software development shops in unlikely places like Slovenia, Bulgaria and whatnot.
Then there are the "celebs". Linus Torvalds, as you might recall, is Finnish, "DVD" Jon Johansen is Norwegian and Matthias Ettrich of KDE Fame is German. I know a fair amount of Germans that did/do open source stuff, and Suse is originally German. Furthermore, Israel boasts a very high quality R&D community in both commercial and Open Software while Computer gaming was invented by a British professor with an overgrown oscilloscope and time to kill.
All in all I have to be a little bit skeptical about that post of yours. After all, Americans surely didn't invent cars and motorcycles, and to this day they can't build 'm properly either. I very much doubt they invented the Linux kernel. :-D
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:3, Informative)
Bingo! One classic example for me was two weeks ago. A friends computer was trashed from spyware. It was easier to just wipe it and reinstall. He didn't have the original Compaq disk (computer from 2003). I used another genuine OEM disk. After installing, it wouldn't authenticate itself. So I have to get ahold of Microsoft....
I tried the online service, which failed. I used the online chat with the service rep (jerk), who told me that in order to use a different disk, I had to pay $99 to relicense the computer. That it had the license tag, fully intact, didn't matter. Or I could call Compaq and buy a new install disk, and wait a few weeks for it to arrive. In the end, I had to call the 888 number, gave it the 200 digit number (good god...) and it passed just fine.
Over 30 minutes wasted on a legally licensed machine because they wanted to charge me another 99 bucks. It would have been easier to pirate a copy. Even easier to use an OS that doesn't have draconian licensing. It isn't a matter of MONEY, (already paid for). It is a matter of my TIME.
I was treated like a pirate for simply trying to do what should be a simple and common thing: reinstall an operating system in a legal manner.
Re:For shame (Score:2, Informative)
No, From TFA
Open Source doesn't stop vendor lock in. You decide to base your infrastructure on Open Source Products it is just as expensive to switch what ever standard then it would with a closed source app. You have a Linux infrastructure and you find that it doesn't do what you need it to do anymore, however a windows network does. Costs about the same as going the other way or from a Microsoft infrastructure to a Sun Infrastructure. If you spend millions on a Linux Infrastructure you are stuck on Linux. If it decides to go in a direction you don't like, sure you think you may be able to maintain the source but that can get so expensive that it is cheaper to switch to an other app then staying with it.
Yea like local software industry will be remaking the wheel. Local Software developers will write software for Windows or Linux it doesn't matter for custom use. That is the bulk of the software development not making applications. Application Development is so 1990's anyways. Besides America majority of its wealth is from small companies not the big ones. If there is no Open Source local software will be witting software for non Open Source bases. No difference. The only one is that the Big companies with Open Source needs to change their model. And probably loose a lot of good developers in the process and effecting the global economy.
Sure hanging onto an ideology is much smarter then using what works in real life. Duel Licensing allows flexibility in the software by allowing non open source to work with Openish source code. Hey I want to use my closed source library as it is the only library that does the job, it is 30 years old but it works well and no need to remake it. But it isn't GPL so I can't add it to a GPL license. Oh wait there is an other licence for the app that makes it work. Wow I am in business not just being MR. Therory Idealistic.
Once again the impression the American Echonomy is based on Large Corporations. Most of our economy is small companies that need to go threw VARs for software, still buying software is kinda passe. As most applications can be more affordable via SAAS.
Not true. There are a lot of Service companies out there. Customers don't want to be Locked to a service vendor (see your top one). Add-ons often add the most bang for the buck. As you are not fiddling around doing the same thing over and over again. You find a guy who specializes in X and does it well. Then some loosey-goosey group of people who try to do everything mediocre.
What is wrong with that. Open So
I disagree (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If it's mission critical... (Score:3, Informative)
I have a friend who used to work for one of the major banks in their credit card billing facility, and he was part of the programming team that created all the software they used for billing. They would never buy a commercial package for their needs, because for one they don't exist, and two they absolutely needed full control over the system and all the code.
Re:Holy FUD Batman! (Score:3, Informative)
What the hell is OpenSQL? Is it a fork of MySQL or PostgreSQL? And surely by "real SQL" you don't mean MS's pitiful SQL Server?
Not to mention that changing from one vendor's SQL Server to another is almost always painful, unless one takes a lot of steps throughout the lifetime of the database to maintain vendor-independence in your SQL statements (and even then you've got management and development tools to worry about). Every SQL book I own would be 1/4 the size if it weren't for the differences between MS SQL, Oracle SQL, MySQL, and PostgreSQL. However, which one is best for your use is largely dependent on individual factors, and it's very rare that someone can discount any of those 4 outright from the start of a project, unless money and source code are primary concerns.
Re:Primary vs Secondary (Score:4, Informative)
Around these parts, "open source" usually means what the Open Source Initiative says. In particular, it does when we're discussing software distribution and licensing. While this meaning of "open source" isn't the only possible one, and the OSI couldn't trademark it, it's clearly the meaning in TFA.
If a license forbids use in certain circumstances, commercial or otherwise, it isn't an open source license according to the OSI. (It isn't a free license according to the Free Software Foundation either.)
So, if it's OSI-approved open source, go ahead and use it freely. There may be restrictions if you modify it, or redistribute it, or reuse the source code for other things, but not for simple use.
Re:For shame (Score:2, Informative)
there is more to the world then just source code
My boss has been lying to me! .. listen, As Being An American, and Student, And work in the IT world, I value Open Source as a tool for information. I see OSS As a way to compete with Proprietary Software.
If it wasnt for things like *nix, what would Windows be? It would be crap. IE would suck alot more than it does, and MS wouldnt have any competition. ... Well there is no Damn bottom line! :
j/k
Also, I see it as a way to give back and submit my ideas to an organization that has given to me.
If i dont like MS MediaPlayer, there is nothing i can do about it (except get someone elses).
But with OSS, If i dont like something Xine did, I could create a fix and submit it. Although It might not make it to Release, Itll make me happy.
The Bottom line is
There are the people that work with IT, and use software as available. And there are the hobbiest programmers, that although work in IT, Also build programs and use OSS as a way to Propogate their skills and share software in a valued way that they receive.
I think this article is pointed more towards those that dont give back because they cant. Where Im sure Over half (50%) of people that use OpenSource Attempt to give back to the better good by either monetary contributions or code, And I dont think these people differ too much from continent to continent. Whats does India see in this arguement Versus UK and US?
Re:I agree (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL allows for the sale of derivative works, or even unmodified copies. As long as an offer of source code is included, there's nothing improper about that.
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how is FOSS "free, as in speech"? (Score:3, Informative)
when people say "free as in beer" that doesn't mean it is about free beer. when they say "free as in speech" that doesn't mean it is about free speech.
you understand the difference between gratis and libre, the "as in" similes have become shorthand to explain the difference to people who are not aware of it.
Re:We don't have enough capitalism... (Score:3, Informative)
The irony of the Wall Street bail-out is that it has made common cause between leftists and libertarians on economic policy.
It demonstrates something the Lenin once said, reflecting on the French revolution: that the bourgeois become utterly ruthless when their interests are threatened. The middle classes in America are willing to create an unholy alliance of Wall Street and Washington to protect their credit-fueled lifestyles, soaking future generations in order to give the wealthiest more money to lend them. This is much closer to Fascism, with a consumer-debt twist, than any of the maneuvers of the social conservatives of the past 30 years - and it has the support of about 60 percent of the populace.