| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FOS and proprietary are two types of license, not two types of softwareFOS and proprietary are two types of license, not two types of softwarePosted Oct 1, 2003 2:18 UTC (Wed) by odonnell (guest, #3265)Parent article: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)
... it will continue to purchase proprietary products if they are found to be superior. This phrase exposes the difficulty in discussing FOS vs. proprietary choices clearly. In my long experience, I have never known anyone to purchase proprietary software. Rather, people pay for licenses to proprietary software, which are financially more like leases than sales, but are generally on less favorable terms than real estate or vehicle leases. The "purchaser" of proprietary software generally acquires the temporary use of a product that she cannot fix herself, and that the owner will not fix, when it proves faulty. GPLed software is also licensed, but with rights that come fairly close to the rights transferred in a sale, except of course for exclusivity. A policy decision to prefer FOSS is not a creation of monopoly, nor a discrimination against particular software products. Rather, it is a standard for acquisition, recognizing that the lack of certain rights in the use of a software product may be inherently harmful to the user, independently of the technical quality of the software. Mike O'Donnell
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||