Jim, As Josh pointed out earlier in a related thread, free software and free markets can co-exist quite well. While certainly worthwhile things to do, you do not need to give away your software at no cost or start a non-profit in order to compete with *proprietary* software. I use the word "proprietary" here as opposed to "commercial" - proprietary software is the enemy of FOSS, not commercial software. I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I think this is a critical differentiation.
We recently built a custom web application for a UVM department. This was an application that we were paid to build. However, we took several steps to make sure the application was non-proprietary and as open as possible. This was *not* a stated customer requirement, but something we felt was very important because of our believe in the importance of FOSS and open standards. We: * built the application using an open source web framework (to which we are a tiny contributor); * followed existing and well-documented coding standards and practices; * licensed all of our code to them under the New BSD License; and * used open standards in order to ensure the application works in all web browsers and did not require any proprietary technology in order to run. These steps were done to avoid vendor lock-in and to make sure the customer had an application that they could maintain even without using the original vendor (us). Again, these were steps we took on our own without customer prompting. In fact, these are issues that few customers think about until a few years after their application is installed and it has become unmaintainable. I bring this up as an example of how FOSS and "commercial" software (albeit not in the way you may typically think of "commercial" software) can co-exist. FOSS isn't about not making money or giving our code away for free. It's about software freedom and all of the great potential benefits that come out of that software freedom (maintainability, extensibility, branching, etc.). So, as I've said many times before, I encourage everyone to stop thinking about cost and start focusing on freedom :-) Thanks, Bradley On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Jim Carroll <[email protected]> wrote: >> I hope that that is something that you all find helpful, regardless of your >> political orientation. > > It's going to be a really fun next few years as Obama starts putting > his principles in action. > > I'm having a little trouble giving away FOSS related products and > services locally. I've offered the local Hinesburg Ride Share > committee my volunteer services to put together a little web-based > database for carpoolers... with some Google maps that would help us > find matches. I've actually already done all the web development > proofs-of concept.. and now I just want to tailor it to fit the needs > for privacy that have been identified. > > The Hinesburg Rides committee wants to wait before we offer it to > locals who have already filled out a carpool form, because the state > might pay lots of money for something better, and they wouldn't want > to have a free, custom-tailored, stop-gap solution, just in case it > wasn't sustainable (which I'm taking to mean that it's something that > they know they can do forever.) > > It's funny, but from our perspective there's nothing more sustainable > than open source software, but somehow that doesn't ring true for the > decision makers. > > In my couple of committee meetings I haven't even used the words open > source... I just mention that the very worst case is that I'm no > longer available, and they would have to find a consultant to make > future changes that they require. At most they would have to pay for > a better-than-average web hosting plan if they needed more hosting > horsepower than I can provide. > > They haven't said no yet... but there's definitely some hesitation > while they wait for something commercial to be put in place by the > state. I think they want the state to adopt Maine's > http://www.gomaine.org/ site, which seems pretty minimal to me. > > I *think* we have to (if we really want to advocate open source) join > in the slow political process at the state or county level, and see if > we can (in the minds of the committee members) compete with the > commercial offerings. This probably means forming our (non-profit?) > organization that really has legs, and can respond to any need for > open source consulting in a way that is truly professional. > > Does anyone else on the list feel the urge to volunteer some tech time > to get some great open source solutions implemented for the state? Is > there a more direct route than volunteering? > > -Jim > -- http://bradley-holt.blogspot.com/
