decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:29 AM EDT

This study by IDC is fascinating. Of course, I would like it, because it confirms something I've been saying for a couple of years now, and it always feels good to be right, rare though it may be in life. What drives European companies to use Open Source isn't lower cost, the study found. It's quality and the ability to change the software at will. I knew the latter was important, which is why I was so opposed to indemnification offerings that forbid changing the software without permission.

Here's an article by IT World Canada explaining the high points of the study. If you click on the link, you can buy the study for $5,000+, by the way. They did the study in March and surveyed 625 companies in Western Europe, and they found that a third of the companies "reported significant live use of open source databases." That high percentage surprised them.

Here's a taste of what the IT World article says about the results:

European enterprises are adopting open source software on the grounds of quality and flexibility, rather than merely considering it "good enough" because it is inexpensive, according to a new survey from research firm IDC. . . .

Twenty-five per cent said they had significant open source operating system (Linux) deployments. . . .

Companies did not cite low cost as their main reason for deploying open source, a factor usually considered one of the main reasons for open source's success. Rather, companies said open source's top benefit was the flexibility allowed by the open source licence. "The most important motivator was that they could deploy whenever they wanted, without having to go back to the vendor and negotiate over licences, without having to discuss it with the CFO or looking at the cost implications. They could just do it," Lykkegaard said.

Another surprise was that many companies said the ability to customize open source software was important. IDC didn't suggest this as one of the standard multiple-choice answers. Instead, many companies added it in the "comments" section of the survey. Vendors of prepackaged, proprietary software routinely downplay the customizability of open source, arguing customers are not interested in extending software themselves.

"These companies don't want to start building an application from scratch, but they can build their own additions to an already-complete application," Lykkegaard said. "Because they are part of an open source community, they can feed this back into the software and it can become a part of the next release, meaning people are helping you to maintain your customization." He said many companies turn to customization when they can't find commercial software that meets their needs.

  


Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost. | 227 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:54 AM EDT
""These companies don't want to start building an application from
scratch, but they can build their own additions to an already-complete
application," Lykkegaard said. "Because they are part of an open
source community, they can feed this back into the software and it can become a
part of the next release, meaning people are helping you to maintain your
customization." He said many companies turn to customization when they
can't find commercial software that meets their needs."

If they use the software in-house they do not have to give the modifications
they make to their competitors. They can just keep it semi-proprietary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections go here please.
Authored by: Hiro Protagonist on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:56 AM EDT
Corrections go here please.
Make the easy to find.

---
I Grok... Therefore... I am.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Of Topic Here ...
Authored by: Dan M on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 09:59 AM EDT
To keep from cluttering up the comments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: ricardomardi on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:06 AM EDT
Interesting & fascinating, I've always had a nagging feeling that the term
"Free", meaning -No Co$t- has always been exploited by the 'Lock in
Corporation' as meaning, 'No real Value'. If it's free, it can't be worth much.

The general public still reacts to the cheap vrs higher value button pushing
that M$ & others always try to place as the first reason anyone would go for
open source.

Maybe, when we seek to advocate open source, we should leave out the "It
doesn't co$$$t anything", only to convey this when they ask. Just my 1c
worth. :-)

---
Democracy is just another term for "Mob Rule".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:19 AM EDT
... which is why I was so opposed to indemnification offerings that forbid changing the software without permission.

The problem (as I see it, IANAL, etc.) is that what if I buy indemnification, modify the software to include (accidently or delibrately) a patented feature, and then get sued. Am I still indemnified?

Isn't that like buying a TV set, opening it to modify it, breaking it, and then demanding my money back?

Is it reasonable to expect indemification to cover any change to the software? And if not, how do you word it so some changes are acceptable but other changes are not and still be fair to the indemifier and indemifiee.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 10:46 AM EDT
EU companies are not alone. I work for a large U.S. company that most people
have heard of, and that company will soon be holding a three-day symposium on
open source software for it's developers.

I'm not authorized to speak publicly for my company, so I deliberately did not
log in when I posted this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Bitkeeper
Authored by: vadim on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:05 AM EDT
Hello,

I'd like an opinion on legality of following business practice:

1) Distribute a Free (as in Beer) along a commercial (payed) software product
for a number of years.
2) Build a user base depending on this software product.

3) After a number of years announce that in couple of monthes the free version
sofware product will stop
functionning, and propose to those who want to continue to use the product to
buy a commercial license?


What bothers me that the users of the free version are left
with no other option but to invest either money to buy a commercial version or
an effort to convert their data into the format compatible with another tool.

I'd understand that if the free version of the software would become
unsupported.... But 'stop functionning' seems really illegal to me...



[ Reply to This | # ]

More reasons
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:13 AM EDT
Besides stability and cost, we use Linux and FOSS because:

1. We can stay off the Microsoft upgrade and patch gerbil wheel.

2. We need standards based systems and software as our best hope of maintaining
access to content for a long, long time.

3. When the author/publisher drops support for some package we can realistically
decide to keep using it, because we've got the source code.

4. Old stuff gets along with new stuff and all of it gets along with Microsoft
if it has to.

---
Nothing screams 'poor workmanship' like wrinkles in the
duct tape.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft is Cheap
Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:25 AM EDT

Companies did not cite low cost as their main reason for deploying open source, a factor usually considered one of the main reasons for open source's success. Rather, companies said open source's top benefit was the flexibility allowed by the open source licence. ...

Microsoft will come to regret their decision to emphasize the issue of cost (all that "TCO" stuff). With reports like this, combined with their long-standing reputation for buggy software, Microsoft's emphasis on cost just makes them look cheap - in a bad way.

With more and more users of software choosing liberty and quality over cost, it's not looking good for Microsoft in the long term. After years of falling short of expectations and hopes, with operating system release after operating system release turning out not to be the safe, secure, reliable offering that's always promised in the next version, it must be clear that their emphasis on their claimed lower "TCO" was a big mistake.

But Microsoft's problem is much deeper. Instead of marketing themselves as cheap, they needed to emphasise flexibility and quality. But this they are chronically unable to do with much credibility. Years of neglecting quality and the true needs of customers have left them in a poor position, with their need to maintain control preventing them from offering the freedom their customers require.

As things stand, they can't win on cost, they can't win on quality, and they certainly can't win on freedom.

---
FOSS IS political. It's just that the political establishment is out of touch and hasn't caught up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The hidden costs of licensing
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 11:42 AM EDT
I'm the sysadmin for a couple of small (5-10 server, 20-50 node) mixed
Solaris/Linux/Windows networks. The primary use is CAD applications, but with
the usual office junk and some specialty apps such as MATLAB and Mathematica.
There are a whole bunch of different licensing schemes for that, but most rely
on a license daemon running on a server, which keeps track of how many clients
are in use.

I spend 20-25% of my time managing software licenses. There are several license
servers (each with its associated configuration file, firewall hole, and daemon)
vendors to contact, and logs to examine. Many of the packages have a separate
license for each feature, though most of the time they all expire at once. I
have a calendar just to tell me which license expires when.

Periodically the license server for some application will go down, because of
bugs. Sometimes we don't have enough licenses to handle demand.

All of that costs money (or decreases productivity, which is the same thing).

It's the worst part of my job, and I detest it. It baffles me that people just
accept it.



---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

just changed from ghost to g4u
Authored by: arrg on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 01:28 PM EDT
I've been a ghost fan for years but they recently changed their software to
require an install on every computer you ghost. The obvious reason for doing
this (though they will say otherwise) is to make me pay a license for every
computer I ghost, as opposed to simply buying a software that will make images
of my systems. I found this to be unacceptable so I looked around and found a
great open source solution. It's called g4u and does everything ghost does yet
it is very easy to use. With ghost you are constantly making new boot disks (a
pain in the..) and you don't need to do this with g4u. We have 350 systems that
would have cost us around $4,000 to use ghost. g4u only asked for a small
donation. just figured I'd give an example of open source being better than
closed and it did save us $4,000 to boot.

---
Time is funny stuff, space has it's points too.... - Hap

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT
Dont underestimate the cost of paperwork - in a large organisation in the UK, it
probably costs £100 just to get authorisation to throw something away! Having to
budget £1,000 in internal man-hours to purchase another licence for sofware you
already have a CD of sticks in the craw of every employee, even if its not his
money!

Your time 4 hrs &£50ph, = £200
IT person's time 4hrs @£50ph= £200
your manager's time 2hrs @£100ph= £200
His manager 1 hr @£200ph = $200
Accounts person 2 hrs @ £50 = £100
Chief accountant 1/2 hr@ $200 = £100

[Most of this time being spent filling in pointless paperwork, or questioning
the competence/good faith of the person placing the order. The remainder tryng
to minimise the tax implcations of moving/breathing/thinking.]

No wonder picking a CD of the rack and installing the software is less
painful.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Holy Grail theory
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 02:44 PM EDT
Herein, within this one small statement lies the "Holy Grail" of
Linux:

"The most important motivator was that they could deploy whenever they
wanted, without having to go back to the vendor and negociate over licenses,
without having to discuss it with the CFO or looking at the cost implications.
They could just do it," Lykkegaard said.

And from this paragraph, let us examine the most important 3 words: "…
negociate (or negotiate) over licenses…"

What negotiation?

Let's see a show of hands. How many here have personally negotiated with GPL?
Uh-huh. And now, how many have personally negotiated with Microsoft?

Hmm. About the same.

Zero.

With Linux you may pay for a distro/program or you might not. How about with
Microsoft? Do you think you can negotiate with Bill or Steve? Do you think
negotiations will be easier in the future? Do you trust Microsoft's research and
reporting on TCO?

Microsoft is deathly afraid they will loose market share. They are afraid that
Linux will continue to grow. They try to stop it. The truth won't work for them,
so they give the truth some "spin". Confusion abounds. And people, as
only people can, stop dead in their tracks to sort things out.

"Is Linux right for Me?", they will ponder.

Maybe.

Microsoft must love those who claim Linux is "free". If gives them the
"ammunition" to continue to spin the "free lunch ain't free"
conspiracy. Think of it as "fuel" to keep their FUD machine going.

Destroy the FUD machine by telling the truth. Linux is NOT free. They are
strings attached. Small ones for sure –download time, a CD or two. Maybe even
some larger ones like tech support, but strings nonetheless.

You WILL pay for Linux – one way or the other. And what you will get in return
something Microsoft cannot or will not offer:

Freedom.

Freedom to choose. Freedom to modify. Freedom to discard the "monetary
shackles" that Microsoft would have you continue to wear.

And perhaps most importantly – Freedom to make a choice where your money goes.
Because folks, when its all said and done – it all boils down to money. You got
it. Billy wants it.


Anon46

"Still trying to get SUSE 9.1 to work, but getting closer as we
speak…"

PS I paid $89.00 for my copy of SUSE 9.1. Small string :)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 03:14 PM EDT
If you are making changes to somebody elses application/s, or to the linux
Kernel you may want to look into this further. If you are talking about creating
an application to run on top of linux, and that application contains nobody
elses code except your own, Then you are under no obligation to share it with
anybody.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: Bas Burger on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 04:38 PM EDT
For me and my clients open source and perticular GPL means:

1. Most important is the "NO LOCKIN" feature, not any vendor decides
how your business model must work.
2. Interoperability and the explicit allowance to make changes that provide
interoperability and finetuning of processes.
3. Is really part of point 2, the "NO LOCKOUT" feature for developers,
this makes that even when any of my clients need a replacement of myself, for
whatever reason including me stopping this work, they can find one as there are
no restrictions or NDA's that keep people from working with that code.
4. Development speed and working code, no fluffy promisses but solutions that
work or can be made to work with finetuning.
5. Open and relaxed relation with my clients, as far as this is posible in
business, no paranoia in any way.
6. Money, I never had to dual licence anything to be able to make money with my
coding, but then I am more a programmer than a business person so my goals are
slight different.

Sideline: I also think one can measure how good a open source developer is quite
easy because of the open peer system that comes with transparancy, I bet that a
lot of open source programmers leave better code to this world than propietary
programmers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why EU Companies Choose Open Source. No. Not Lower Cost.
Authored by: pauljhamm on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 06:24 PM EDT
Nice to have some verification of what we all know. Namely that a single pebble
can create an avalanche. I guess we can thank Richard, Linus, Alan, and the
rest for throwing rocks. FOSS has always been about the concept of
“Pay it forward”. The GPL has always been at its core a way
of enforcing the concept of “Pay it forward”. It prevents
the Standard Oils of the software industry from stamping out the Independents.
Simply by letting everyone play with the same equipment. Let everyone have the
same opportunities and allow them to succeed or fail on their own merits. Hmm
where have I heard that before?

Another PJ

P.S. Wave that flag baby, wave it! You know you want to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Any news from Utah
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 26 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
Isn't the hearing today the Utah G2 hearing in SCO v IBM?

Any news?

Did Maureen turn up?

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds