On Wednesday, 29 בJune 2005 18:44, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> In this situation, if his software was "open source" - even in the
> sense that the source was available to the customer - the customer
> could have hired someone to improve the software instead of buying a
> new version - and that scares a company that makes money from selling
> these new versions.
>
> > What you completely failed to explain is why you need to "hide" the
> > source with such a dependable client base... or maybe the picture
> > is not so bright as you try to portray.
>
> If I understood him correctly, he is afraid that when the client
> needs an improvement, he'll pay $10,000 for a programmer to fix his
> problem, rather than pay $100,000 on a new version.
Yes, that the whole point of open source- the client would supposedly
prefer a software he can get a different vendor to supply (fix,
upgrade, whatever) in case he is not happy with the original vendor.
But all is not gloom and doom for the vendors - the vendor can say "sure
- you can get another vendor to fix/upgrade the software, but then you
lose my warranty and are not longer eligible for support. If after that
you want an upgrade from me (because I just put in many more features
and enhancements which my sales people had shown you to be the bestest
ever), then please pay for a new site license - unlike some people I am
not upgrading other people's software for peanuts - thank you very
much."
In this scenario, vendors indeed compete on best support and best
features (that you can sell to the client, which is basically all about
how good your marketing is), and not on who can lock-in their clients
harder.
--
Oded
::..
We are not human beings on a spiritual journey. We are spiritual beings
on a human journey.
-- Stephen R. Covey
================================================================To unsubscribe,
send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
