>I encourage everyone to stop thinking about cost and start focusing on freedom :-)
I like that. - balu On 1/15/09, Bradley Holt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >
