Open source and user costs

From the mike_shi blog, I can see the "Open Source" Last card "on csdn. The author takes the three software: Compiere, sugarcrm, and Asterisk as an example, note: "Open Source" has already entered the high-end commercial software field and is no longer limited to professional developers.

However, this is not suitable for Linux, Apache, MySQL, or mike_shi compared with Microsoft.

For software such as ERP/CRM that has a high degree of customization, the Code itself is not the most important, the key lies in the service.

The ABAP source code of the SAP system standard program can also be viewed (as long as SAP net applies for a license key). Can it be said that sap is also open source?

The article says:

People who download "open-source software" can be divided into three categories: Technical enthusiasts of the software, potential users, and competitors of the product.

There is no doubt about the technology lovers. Potential users can also be certain-because there is no service support, software alone is useless, and SAP's mysap can also be downloaded, but it seems that no one has heard of it and installed it on their own. Finally, it is a competitor's problem. This can only be a reference for others and cannot be copied.

The problem is that China is not like this. Under the cultivation of piracy, many people do not realize that open source is also copyrighted. GPL/APL/MPL are legal licenses.

Some people in the comments said: this is the development model of the Self-disconnected Road.

I can only say how the spirit of open source has been misinterpreted in such an environment where legal concepts are indifferent.

Use
One of the most important considerations for software selection is the total cost of ownership (TCO ). Generally, the price of commercial software is TCO, such as the boxed windows. For enterprises like ERP/CRM
For application software, the software procurement cost is only part of the service charge paid regularly (for example, every year) to the software service provider (not necessarily the developer) to maintain the normal operation of the system, and
Changes are adjusted.

Switch to open-source software? Unless users have strong technical strength, but most users do not have such technical strength, it is necessary to use this open source
The software owner or other software vendors provide services for the software. This has become the source of revenue for open-source software vendors, and constitutes a cost expense for users-not necessarily cheaper than commercial software. However
If you use the license of most open-source software for commercial purposes, the third-party service provider must obtain the legal authorization of the owner-the authorization fee is also collected by the open-source software vendor.
It is also the user's cost. The user must also pay the service fee to the service provider.

Given that open-source software vendors are generally small in size, this usually implies quality risks. Risks are also part of the cost, and may sometimes be a big part. There are also legal issues to worry about. If a service provider uses open-source software in violation of the license, the user may still have legal risks.

Therefore, in the legal environment, the so-called "self-disconnected Road" is completely nonsense. The law also protects the rights and interests of open-source software.

Of course, in an environment where the legal system is purely empty talk, what I mentioned above is purely nonsense. Open source is just a chance to "legitimate piracy" for some people. Similarly, in such an environment, it will be very effective for various open-source fuds.