re: "the example use of open source suggests that it is free. I know that is not the case"

Interesting observation. Depends on what your definition of "free" is. Firstly if you need external help implementing an open source or proprietary solution then you are going to have to pay for that assistance. Looking at the actual applications and taking Compiere as an example, you can use the version made available under GPL without paying any money to anyone and of course you have the code and and can make whatever changes and modifications you like. So, it really is free in all senses of the word.

However, if you are convinced by an "open source" vendor that you really need to be using their 'professional version' then you will most likely find that it is only available under a proprietary license and with a mandatory annual payment. This is the case with Compiere 'professional versions'.

Larry Augustin who is a director of Compiere recently blogged on the difference between USA and rest-of-world views about the meaning of "open source" and, I think by implication, "free". See http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2008/09/commercial-open-source-in-europe-verses-the-us.html. It is an interesting read.

The perception that open source software is not 'free' as in 'free beer' and 'free speech' seems to be held and perpetuated by people who believe the website PR information of products that claim to be open-source but are not available under the terms that Augustin defines as the 'European View' of open source.

There are frequently alternatives available to the 'not-quite-free' products. For instance, Adempiere is a fork of the Compiere that started 2 years ago and it has been rapidly developed over that time with all developments being incorporated in the single-version GPL licensed code. The more feature rich versions of Compiere are not available under an open-source license and you have to pay an annual subscription. Perhaps this difference is why you hold the view that open-source software is not really free?

Curvie,

This is a good question but difficult to answer because there are a number of different business models in the general area of what we refer to as open source. Here are some examples:

Generally, an open source software product is “sold” under what is referred to as a General Public License or GPL. By definition, the GPL version of the software is free and the source code and documentation is available for download over the Internet. Some examples you can go to the following web site (http://openoffice3.download-suite.com/) and download the open office suite version 3.0 at no cost. You can go to SugarCRM's web site (http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/) and get the open source version of their software.

SugarCRM is an excellent example of another open source business model. They have a free open source version of their software that you can use as mentioned above or you can purchase their professional version to run on-site for around $275/user/year or have SugarCRM provide the product as a service for $40/month/user. They also provide an enterprise version, “industrial strength CRM”, as a service for $75/user/month or an on site version for $449/user/year. The differences are both in the capabilities of the software and the level of support that SugarCRM provides.

Another interesting model that is developing is referred to as “collaborative software development”, where a group of companies or organizations having similar requirements band together to develop and then maintain an application. Here are some examples of this model.

The Trisano Project (http://www.trisano.org/) is an open source, citizen-centric infectious disease surveillance system, the result of a collaborative effort between county health advocates, state health officials and Collaborative Software Initiative. Another example, The Kuali Foundation (http://kuali.org/) is a non-profit organization responsible for sustaining and evolving a comprehensive suite of administrative software that meets the needs of its members (colleges, universities, commercial firms and interested organizations) that share a common vision of open, modular, and distributed systems for their software requirements. 

However, regardless of the specific business model open source software is usually significantly less costly to implement and maintain. I hope this answers your question.
William A. Crowell

Principal
Magellan Associates, LLC
www.magellan-associates.com

You can contact me by clicking on my name and then click the "contact" tab.

Certainly the ability to freely download software is the thing that gets everyone's attention. But as anyone who works in the open source area knows, open source doesn't only mean free. And if fact, many of us would argue that there are much bigger savings to be had on open source -- even when you do pay a license or subscription fee.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's insane that companies would pay for an operating system for their PCs and then pay another 500 bucks an "office suite". Especially when an operating system and office suite are freely downloadable from the internet. But even if there was a price involved, the efficiency of linux and linux based software is a quantum leap from anything else. My little $300 micro-notebook operates at a speed that blows my larger machine away. And my 5 year old Dell notebook is lightning fast with linux and open office. Ask your accountant what adding two useful years to the life of all your PC hardware would do.

And in the enterprise space, we have brought applications like SugarCRM and Scalix (an Exchange substitute) in and even with their modest license fees, there are incredible savings. The stability and the open nature of the applications makes them easy to install, requiring little maintenance and adds an ease of integration with existing systems that you can only dream of with proprietary applications. And as every good IT person knows, it's not the license price, it's the cost of maintaining the system that kills you.

So it's frustrating and sometime baffling at how businesses drink the propiretary "kool-aid" and stay with the "safer" (a.k.a. more expensive) proprietary options. This couldn't happen anywhere but IT. If any company was cost cutting and it's employees refused to do anything but travel first class, eat in the most expensive restaurants and constantly overspend budgets -- any owner or manager would have a fit. But if they check into the Hotel California and its software -- few bat an eye.

Even that last excuse -- fear of linux -- has been removed. Our company (and we are one of many) offers hosted solutions for all major open source apps, training, implementation and customization -- everything to get people up and running without ever so much as entering a single linux command.

I'm glad to see progress being made, but I still can't believe how the old paradigm holds on.

jim.love[at]performanceadvantage.ca