BSA Study Demonstrates Open Source's Economic Advantage 87
jrepin writes "The fundamental premise of the latest Software Alliance study — that licensed, proprietary software is better in many ways than pirated copies — actually applies to open source software even more strongly, with the added virtues that the software is free to try, to use and to modify. That means the potential economic impact of free software is also even greater than that offered by both licensed and unlicensed proprietary software. It's yet another reason for governments around the world to promote the use of open source in their countries by everyone at every level."
Post Facto Economic Impact -- Not Productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Switching to GIMP, my productivity is about to go through the roof!
It's not about productivity, it's about economic impact. The article is kind of tongue in cheek poking fun of BSA's erroneous numbers manipulation to show that "properly licensed software" contributes oh so much to the economy. For clear reasons, your switch to GIMP from (presumably) a proprietary software alternative wouldn't move you from one column to the other unless you were to somehow pirate GIMP. While pirating GIMP is possible, you'd like just install it legally by downloading it with references to the GPLv3 license. Whether or not you believe it, GIMP with a copy of the GPLv3 is actually properly licensed software -- putting it in the column of the nebulous cloud of software that the BSA claims inflates our world economy to staggering heights.
To try to quantify the "productivity" of GIMP versus something else like photoshop would likely be subjective, nebulous and not 1 to 1. This isn't about productivity, it's about piracy. The author is pointing out how much of the mad moneys comes from open source software and all but accuses the BSA of co-opting that figure to appear to be their own work.
Re: (Score:3)
How does one pirate something that's already free to start w/? It is legal to download the copy w/o downloading the license as well - the latter only becomes relevant if the downloaded copy is being redistributed or sold.
I think that the clear challenger to FOSS is pirated proprietary software. Other than that, while people may be willing to pay for something like Windows (who knows for how much longer, though, depending on the availability of Windows 7), not too many would continue forking out cash for
Re:Post Facto Economic Impact -- Not Productivity (Score:5, Informative)
not too many would continue forking out cash for MS Office if there are alternatives like Google Office (the LO or OO offices are certainly not ready for most office usage, although they're probably adequate for personal use).
[citation needed]
The number of companies what have switched entirely to LO and/or OO while continuing to run Windows is astounding. Its more than good enough to handle "most office usage". I know of entire companies that switched cold turkey, with servers full of MS Word/Excel documents. They had a problem with less than 50 documents out of hundreds of thousands dating back 20 years. Those that failed were old and broken MS Office spread sheets, which turned out to be broken in Excel as well.
LO gets document conversion correct far more often than Google Office.
The phrase "Certainly not ready" suggests your analysis is done to the same standards as the BSA.
Re:Post Facto Economic Impact -- Not Productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny that you call someone out with "[citation needed]" and then start making claims that you aren't backing with a shred of evidence either.
Re:Post Facto Economic Impact -- Not Productivity (Score:5, Informative)
Surely you can name just half a dozen companies whose user base comprises more than, say 200 people, that have switched entirely, then?
I mean, since you're so keen on citations, right?
For the Google challenged:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments [openoffice.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the "+1, Bitchslap" mod when you need it?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you don't want to demand more specific sub set such that it can't possibly be fulfilled?
Maybe Israeli Companies of left handed users operating In Iran, or companies of over 250,000 employees in Nome Alaska or something?
Government document processing needs and docment interchange needs are not significantly different than
private business. If anything governments demand greater flexibility and accept documents from more diverse sources.
Re: (Score:1)
I could help but notice that most of those organizations were schools, with governments filling in the rest. A more useful list would be *companies* that have chosen to use it.
Did you actually read that list? The entire third section is labeled "Private Sector". Many of those are companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. I've tried time and time again to test the practical application of LibreOffice and OpenOffice in corpoate use on many occasions, always make sure to use the latest releases at each time of testing. But I've always come across incompatibilities, missing functionality and just plain awkwardness in their user interfaces which make me quickly miss Microsoft Office.
At this point I've given up feeling sad. Feeling sad if after so many years, incompatibilities are still a problem, is too much wasted emoti
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see how being accustomed to MS Office has any connection to LibreOffice/OpenOffice's failure to properly handle MS Office formats. If it munges up the file outside of MS Office, it's useless.
I do prefer MS Office because the many many years of iterations and the extremely massive userbase compared to OO/LO definitely shows. Having said that, I'm flexible. I can use LibreOffice just fine, even if it's a bit incapable at times (heck, until the very recently release beta of LO 4.1, you couldn't even ro
Re: (Score:1)
That's nice.
I've had .docx files which I've loaded in the latest versions of LibreOffice, resaved without making any changes, and finding line spacings and a few other oddities show up when reloaded in either LO or Office 2010. I simply cannot trust LibreOffice (or OpenOffice) anymore when it comes down to the crunch. If you're going to be dealing with MS Office documents, for the sake of your own stress levels as well as avoiding troubles later, just fucking buy MS Office and live in peace. Such is the way
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually no.
Since where you downloaded it from was, by virtue of the license, obligated to provide you with a copy of the license when you download the work, a gplv3 product without the license is an infringing one. You would not be guilty of infringing on copyright directly, but would n
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most twisted so-called "logic" that I've read all month.
I have only one word to say to you.
"Wut."
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suggesting that while it would have technically been an infringing copy, with a license in the same directory on your own machine at the program, there's no way to tell that you didn't actually download it with the program in the first place.
It's sort of like how finding money on the street and keeping it may technically be stealing, but there's absolutely nothing that anybody can practically do about it unless the person who dropped it is still right there. ever hope to do about it unless the perso
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the clear challenger to FOSS is pirated proprietary software.
These days I would think it is more likely 'cloud' software, with more and more software running just a client in the browser (and compiling software to javascript - which ends up as a confusing thing for OSS licenses as Javascript is source code) users are running less software from their own systems. Web-based email, storage, office suites, video conferencing, social networking, etc... are all effectively non-free programs that the user has no control over, the free software movement now has to somehow ma
Re:I'm convinced (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I see switching from Photoshop to the GIMP to be a productivity killer. You'll be using all that extra money on new time-consuming hobbies like a new boat to take fishing, new golf clubs for those sunny afternoons, new hookers for those lonely nights, a new wife when the old one finds the golf clubs...
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, just get your wife interested in golf, it worked for me.
Now she's the one asking if we're golfing tonight, and the weekend golfing is a given.
Can't help you with the hookers or the fishing boat though. You're on your own there.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're not being entirely serious, but for some of us, half the point of a hobby like golf is to break away from the wife and responsibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I was being entirely serious, but I do understand your point.
My wife and I actually play golf together anywhere between 2 and 7 times/week, and usually with friends. It's how we both get away for a break from stuff, see some of our buddies, and is a major influence on our vacations.
But it also means that while some of our friends need to check with the wife or can't play some of the time, both of us want to get out golfing as often as time allows.
Sometimes, having a hobby with the wife is a good choice
Re: (Score:2)
I shouldn't respond to a troll AC, but I want to say two things:
1. People should never settle. If they're not finding the right one, that's unfortunate, but they'll never be truly happy if they settle.
2. I've spent quite a bit of time studying people and personality types. There's a ton of variation in personalities that a lot of people don't even know exist. I'd like to think it's just because they don't know to look for it, but I suspect it's more that they can't imagine that everyone isn't like them o
We present you a new quest (Score:2)
I had 1 problem, then I used the GIMP to solve it, and now I have 99.
Assuming that a bitch ain't one, congratulations on the new responsibilities that have been given to you after you have demonstrated your ability.
Re: (Score:2)
Switching to GIMP, my productivity is about to go through the roof!
Hmm... If you script everything in Python, that might actually be possible... Would be interesting to try...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh, every government clerk uses Photoshop and other highly specialized software to do his/her day to day job.
What do government clerks have to do with anything?
Can't go there (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, just because the message is one that some might like I can't get past the messenger. The BSA has spent decades lying to the public and politicians and using math that would never pass muster in any college in the developed world. They have lost any and all possible credibility they could ever possibly have, especially when it comes to on of their 'reports'.
I'm sure this will offend a lot of people here that are open source fans who would love to cite this. However I'm not about to become a hypocrite and give them credibility now just because they are saying something more palatable.
Re: (Score:2)
I think in this case, people are pointing out their conclusions also apply to free software.
I don't believe the BSA is suddenly saying free software is good for the economy, that's someone else's conclusions.
Re: (Score:3)
I think in this case, people are pointing out their conclusions also apply to free software.
I don't believe the BSA is suddenly saying free software is good for the economy, that's someone else's conclusions.
Software is good for the economy, whether it is free or not. When it comes to businesses (the B in BSA), no software is without cost. Businesses buy support contracts and some may even pay third parties for training. The support contracts in particular pay for a lot of free software development.
Re:Can't go there (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case, the messenger is someone with degrees in mathematics pointing out how flawed the BSA's figures are. So you might find it interesting to go there.
Just for fun, agreeing with them will (Score:2)
make them disappear faster.
FOSS fundamentally negates the need for a BSA.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the article basically says, "The BSA says non-pirated software is better, and Open Source Software isn't pirated, and it costs even less, so Open Source Software is a hell of a lot better!"
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the article basically says, "The BSA says non-pirated software is better, and Open Source Software isn't pirated, and it costs even less, so Open Source Software is a hell of a lot better!"
That doesn't follow, just because something is cheaper doesn't make it better, not to mention that 'Free Software' is centered around Freedom not Free-of-charge yet many governments tout the license cost savings in monetary terms rather than any aspect of Freedom. The whole Free and Open Source Software movement is being sold on cost rather than what it was actually designed for so it's no wonder the software industry hasn't rushed to embrace it wholeheartedly, you can't sell it on being free of charge and
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, what an amazingly stupid reply. You really think that the BSA actually endorses free software! My god the stupidity it blinds!
Re: (Score:1)
In short support following the rules. (Score:5, Interesting)
In reality one should support anti-piracy and open source systems.
With the following understandings...
Some Software Projects can be better maintained and designed using a priority software model. Sometime to get it done, the incentive of money is the best way.
Some Software Projects can be done better with Open Source. The project is interesting enough to have enough supporters to keep it going.
There are some projects the license doesn't matter much.
These ideas are not really in conflict it is only pig headed nuts who try to make them seem that way. When choosing software there are a lot of factors to consider. Sometime those thousand dollar license fees, or the freedom to alter source code are least of your concern, compared to getting support, and hiring staff proficient in the software, or just general product quality.
However whatever license you choose for your software it is important that you try to follow it. If you have say a GNU license, you better make sure you don't accidentally let some of that code slip into your own product, by some naive developer or manager who think GNU = Public Domain. In the same vein you need to make sure your commercial license are equally maintained, as you have already weight the good and the bad and chosen your product and you should take what you expect.
Piracy of commercial software is bad, it is just as bad as taking a GNU product and relicensing it, without the appropriate permission. Making software take a lot of time and resources. Just to toss the software creators license aside, will only make things worse.
Re:In short support following the rules. (Score:4, Informative)
Anything that speeds the demise of companies like Adobe, MS, Sony, Oracle & EA
Some people misbehave. So lets condemn all people.
There is simply not enough demand for some specialized software to support development a free software approach. Somebody has to feed, clothe and shelter the guy(s) taking 6 months of their lives to write, debug and test the code for your new air-stream continuous sample monitoring gizmo (or whatever).
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. And besides - companies like Adobe and MS are responsible for producing some of the best-tier software of various categories in the world (Photoshop/Creative Suite and Visual Studio/Office respectively). I'd rather they didn't demise if it meant regressing significantly by going to whatever's second best.
Why Goverenments (Score:2)
My question to the submitter is, why must the government do the promotion? In what way does this have any relation to the daily lives of citizens and businesses?
Re:Why Goverenments (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Governments are supposed to be stewards for the country. They should be looking at the _long_ term. By setting a good example they show that they actually give a dam about spending efficiently instead of justifying mercenary assassination for "things" such as oil, power, control, etc.
There is a reason we have _standards_ in the first place: So we don't force everyone to keep wasting energy re-inventing the wheel. Open Source has it own set of problems (usually poor documentation) but the ROI on it is a major advantage when governments routinely spend other people's money. For using software that follows the standards we keep the vendor's implementation honest, and the money normally spent on licensing can be instead spent on hardware + people.
Open Source _can_ make good business sense. By having governments use it whenever possible it "legitimizes" / removes the stigma from OSS. How long did it take Microsoft to wean off Hotmail off FreeBSD ?
There are a lot of good OSS based on technical code quality. Of course there is also a lot of crap. But at least the difference is one can do a code audit and literally SEE the bugs in the code in contradistinction to closed source where you have no idea what kind of data they are selling behing the scenes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - agree 100% !
Sadly, most people have forgotten the in-a-lien-able part, that is, not able to place a lien against basic fundamentals.
Re: (Score:2)
Want the government to use OpenSource, get rid of the restrictions on GPL.
There are so many government funded research projects that start on BSD/etc because of the GPL restrictions. I guess that's helping BSD.
Re: (Score:1)
This patches (the improvements) can be issued as public domain, the combination (with the original code) remains GPL. And, there is no problem using GPL code. Is this not clear?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Modifications to a GPL-licensed program must be released under terms that allow the modified work as a whole continue to be licensed under the GPL. Any GPL-compatible license makes this possible, including the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that begs the question. If by default, all patches do not have a licence, are they assumed to be public domain? Assuming all of these patches are public domain, if I take enough patches going back far enough, I will have pretty much the entire source-code. This means I could just aggregate the patches
hardly (Score:3)
While I do not disagree, in principle, with the conclusion in OP, you can hardly trust the conclusion of something the BSA publishes - which is less of a study than it is an argument for software licensing made up after the conclusion was reached to support their point.
It's about liability and responsibility of fault (Score:1)
Commercial software offers someone to pin liability claims against if there are problems and loss incurred as a result. Open Source basically turns that around and make it the user's responsibility. Hey, you had the source code, why didn't you look at it? From a business perspective, it's easier to be able to have a vendor to blame and sue for software issues than for the business to say that we'll take responsibility for adoption and use of said software and take on any liability from such use.
it's simi
Re:It's about liability and responsibility of faul (Score:5, Insightful)
How does commercial software give you anyone to pin liability on? All of it that I've seen either disclaims liability entirely or limits liability to refunding your money (even from major vendors like Oracle it reads like "if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces"). You definitely won't be able to hold the vendor liable for the cost of lost business due to the failure of their software. Sure it gives you someone to blame, but you're still left holding the bag when it comes to the actual money the failure cost you. At least with open-source software, if the failure's bad enough the business can put it's own resources to work fixing it. Contrast that with commercial software where the business has no choice but to sit and wait for the vendor to decide the problem's important enough for the vendor to fix it.
Re:It's about liability and responsibility of faul (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not a knock against the quality of F/OSS. However, I can take a piece of commercial software and show auditors that it is FIPS or Common Criteria certified, which is important for the legal eagles, especially with regs like Sarbanes-Oxley, FERPA, PCI-DSS, and other items.
Say something like a downed production machine or a security breach causes an audit, and the bug that caused it was within the OS or application:
Scenario 1: The software is shown to be commercial, with the pretty ribbons showing it was certified (AES library is officially certified by NIST), etc. Logs were shown that updates were pushed out on schedule, and that there was an IDS/IPS system in place. The auditors find that shit happens, due diligence was done, and head home.
Scenario 2: The software used is solid, but doesn't have the certifications. Even proof of everything well maintained by IT, they go in and report findings that it was "from an untrusted/unknown vendor with an unknown security reputation". Then someone gets sacked because something has to be done or else the company may lose its ability to process credit cards or have the SEC step in.
These certifications have nothing to do with the software's actual security. However, there is a big difference between secure in the eyes of the law and the auditors (CYA), versus actual security.
This is the same exact reason why antivirus software goes on the Solaris, Linux, and AIX machines... not because they will get infected, but so the legal department can tick a check box saying that "all servers have AV software present."
Re:It's about liability and responsibility of faul (Score:4, Informative)
So Can I....
http://www.redhat.com/solutions/industry/government/certifications.html [redhat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a knock against the quality of F/OSS. However, I can take a piece of commercial software and show auditors that it is FIPS or Common Criteria certified, which is important for the legal eagles, especially with regs like Sarbanes-Oxley, FERPA, PCI-DSS, and other items.
This is a super silly argument.
Certification of F/OSS happens quite frequently. It's in fact often easier to certify a F/OSS project than a proprietary project because the certification process usually demands full access to the source code (that the original vendor may not even be able to grant access to, since his own software may be depending on other proprietary software library binary blobs under the hood).
Also, F/OSS can be "commercial" software, just like proprietary software can be "freeware". And
Boy Scouts of America? (Score:1)
First they're allowing gays, now they're looking into free software... the Tea Party is really gonna flip out now.
The BSA study will be seen as true (Score:3)
Most of the pointy haired types and politicians who will be shown the BSA study will never read past the Executive Summary on page 1, many will not even do that and will just look at the difference in height of the blue and brown bars labeled $53 Billion Additional Value. There are a few pages with impressive phrases like Macroeconomic Analysis and tables with lots of numbers -- so it must all be well researched and thus true.
Glyn Moody -- who is he ? Do they read technical articles ?
The important readers are the politicians; protecting against piracy is obviously the right thing to do ... and for those not convinced a donation to a favoured cause will help convince that the guys showing the report are sincere.
My point is that if you think that a detailed deconstruction of the study is the right way to expose this: then you are deluded. Properly presented reports showing the other case is a better way - but much harder since OSS does not have the money to ensure that the correct message is understood. Not impossible: just harder.