On 11/08 11:50, Alex Hudson wrote: > > The ability to see the source, let alone modify it, definitely does help > reduce the possibility of lock-in. But that's essentially saying, "it's > quite cheap to switch away from a free software application" - looking > at the TCO of an application, that might be a significant saving, and > one which is often unavailable with proprietary software.
Exactly. These are the benefits I would like to stress. These are ways to show that Free Software has qualities that saves money in the long run. > I also don't believe that free software is always cheaper; I can point > to many examples where it is more expensive. That doesn't mean that in a > commercial context it would be the wrong choice: it's partly about cost, > but also about value. If your basic arguments revolve around the cost > being lower, it becomes difficult to argue in favour of free software > when it isn't the cheapest. I now that Free Software can be more expensive initially. Not the least because of previous lock in troubles and migration costs. I don't think we should be afraid of this. Free Software has so many advantages that it really should be the other side that have to prove that they are cheaper. I mean, if I'm about to give up my freedom (you can translate it to corporate language if you wish) to a company selling me a piece of non-free software at least I want it to save me money. When compared to a non free solution it is always interesting to extend the time line on which to calculate. What happens with the TCO-value if we look at 3 or maybe 4 lifetimes instead of one. I know that that coudb be quite hard, another way to look at it is to calculate with an exit cost. How much does it cost me to switch away from this piece of software. > So, I do agree with you that arguing that it's cheap/free generally > isn't an amazingly good tactic. But I also wouldn't put it "last" in > terms of arguments: I think the cost is an important factor, since there > is a lot of added value in terms of choice and freedom. I think we are actually talking about exactly the same thing. What I want to say is basically, don't say that it is cheap or free. Talk about the other benefits Free Software has, that in the long (or even in the short) run actually saves money. I think there is difference between being cheap than to have qualities that makes you save money. I like to see Free Software as something with many good qualities. And many people would say that quality might cost but saves you money in the long run.* Regards, /Marcus *) If these sentences doesn't make sense I blame my english. Please let me know so I can try to rephrase. -- Marcus Rejås jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ,= ,-_-. =. Rejås Datakonsult e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) Kaserngatan 1 web: http://www.rejas.se `-'(. .)`-' s-761 46 Norrtälje gpg-key: http://www.rejas.se/rejas.asc \_/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
