Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software

Posted Oct 31, 2009 5:57 UTC (Sat) by freemars (subscriber, #4235)
Parent article: Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software

Near the beginning of the "Total Cost of Ownership" Abram tries a variation on a familiar open source meme, but only gets half way there. Let me finish it for him:

Free as in kittens vs. Free as in Speech.

Why does THIS meme belong in a discussion of TCO? Because if you start thinking about it you might start wondering what kind of 'ownership' we're arguing about. After all, it isn't YOU who owns the software. You're merely leasing it from the vendor. The 'ownership' that's going on here is that the vendor owns a bit of you.

So what is the Total Cost of being Owned?

It might be a price jump the next time you start to negotiate a contract.

It might be vendor practicing 'self help' -- remotely disabling its software on your machines.

It might be the data YOU entered over several years turning into irretrievable garbage -- lost to some propitiatory and undocumented file format. This can happen if the vendor goes out of business or if the vendor simply decides to go in new direction.

Vendors want to talk about TCO? Good. Let's do JUST THAT.

Later in the paper Abram tries to spin "SaaS" into "Software as a Solution" -- huh? I guess you can't say "software as a service" because that might remind you -- once again -- you don't own anything. Similarly Abram recasts "caveat emptor" as "let the installer beware."

Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software

Posted Oct 31, 2009 12:49 UTC (Sat) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"Why does THIS meme belong in a discussion of TCO? Because if you start thinking about it you might start wondering what kind of 'ownership' we're arguing about. After all, it isn't YOU who owns the software. You're merely leasing it from the vendor. The 'ownership' that's going on here is that the vendor owns a bit of you.

So what is the Total Cost of being Owned?"

This is a sweet point. Another angle might be to ask, when you spend what they say for their solution, what you actually own, if anything. And if you don't own the software at this price, how much would it cost to actually own it?

all the best,

drew

The kitten thing

Posted Nov 1, 2009 15:42 UTC (Sun) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm always surprised when they try the kitten argument. It doesn't work out so well for the proprietary kitten vendor. Let's see:

First of all, you don't get a free kitten. You have to pay for the kitten. But you don't get ownership of the kitten, just a license to take care of it. Ownership of the kitten remains with the vendor.

The vendor does not guarantee the health of the kitten. If the kitten gets sick, you may return it for possible replacement or refund, at the vendor's option. You may not take it to an independent veterinarian or attempt to treat the kitten yourself.

You are the only one licensed to pet the kitten. You may not let anyone else pet the kitten. You may designate one other person as a Backup Petter, as long as you ensure that you and the Backup Petter never pet the kitten at the same time.

You must buy food for the kitten. You may only use food supplied by the kitten vendor. If the kitten vendor chooses to no longer supply food for this model of kitten, you must let the kitten starve.

Failure to follow all of these rules will result in heavy fines and possible criminal prosecution.

Alternately, you can get a free kitten from the free kitten project.

The kitten thing

Posted Nov 1, 2009 23:18 UTC (Sun) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] (1 responses)

Not only that, but with the free kitten project you get the opportunity to breed the kitten, possibly improving its descendants and the lives of others by giving them also the gift of a kitten.

The kitten thing

Posted Nov 2, 2009 18:41 UTC (Mon) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link]

I find it interesting that the proprietary software industry has tipped its hand - they understand, and are very happy with, the fact that their software is a burden to their customers.

Our best counter to the kitten argument is that the whole point is for the software to be a boon, and we allow the user to do whatever they have to to make their software a boon, even if they wish to fire us as their vet, groomer, trainer, and breeder.