5 ms·

Its easier to procure paid for software than open source in many large enterprises. There was a culture of fear for open source promulgated by proprietary vend

Its easier to procure paid for software than open source in many large enterprises. There was a culture of fear for open source promulgated by proprietary vendors and major consultancies in the early 00's - the "know the facts" campaign by Gartner and Microsoft springs to mind. Although this idea is generally dead now, the scars live on in the purchasing and licencing approval flows at many large enterprises. I am familiar with several organisations where a paid for software licence can be acquired with nothing more than trivial approval for the spend. Yet adoption of an open source product requires multi layer approval of the licence and recording of licence risk against the project. There is a valid case for that due diligence but its not a particularly strong case and if it were the reason for this situation, then proprietary software licences would be subject to the same scrutiny.

pjmlp 10y ago
It is also easier to make a living from closed source, than open source. Not all types of software are profitable with consulting, books or donations.
corecoder 10y ago
Paid for software usually comes in two flavours: turnkey or with consultants. In both cases the promise is that the software will in the end run, and those who need to will actually be able to use it. Also, that the software does something that should be useful to you. Open source software comes "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. So, who is promising that the software will run, that people will be able to use it and that it does something actually useful to the large enterprise? If the enterprise has never used that software, long time employees have usually no professional experience with it, so it is risky have them install and run it. In my limited experience, adoption of open source software by large enterprises comes most of the times through consultants, hired not to install the software but to solve a business problem. The consultants promise to solve the problem with the software, and that the software will run etc.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > Open source software comes "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. As far as I'm aware, most proprietary licenses have the same disclaimer. Have you ever seen Oracle getting sued when their database segfaults and loses data (in a similar way that a contractor would get sued for building a bridge that crashes)? You usually pay for support contracts with big enterprises, which have external guarantees and experts on call. Luckily, free software companies provide the same services without taking the freedom from the users of that software.
  - corecoder 10y ago
    I'm not talking of the proprietary license, but of the exchange between buyer and seller. I've never talked to an Oracle salesperson, but I doubt that they'd say that the software isn't guaranteed to run and/or be useful. The same goes for FOSS when a consulting company is involved: they say that the software will work; my point is that that's the most likely way in which a large enterprise can run FOSS. There are other ways, of course: the decision can come from a high enough manager (or even from the CEO or CTO) who's willing to take the risk, but, indeed, they are taking a risk.
johannes1234321 10y ago
> Its easier to procure paid for software than open source in many large enterprises. This is one of the reasons for Dual licensing. You can use the open source version or procure a license.
- montywi 10y ago
  Agree. However Dual licensing (on GPL) only works with software that other companies want to embed into their Software. BSD was created to give similar benefits as Dual Licensing for software, like MaxScale, that is not embeddable. Dual licensing on GPL works by having users that want to redistribute the software under another license to pay. BSL works by having users that uses the software in more extreme conditions than normal to pay.

pjmlp 10y ago

It is also easier to make a living from closed source, than open source. Not all types of software are profitable with consulting, books or donations.

corecoder 10y ago

Paid for software usually comes in two flavours: turnkey or with consultants. In both cases the promise is that the software will in the end run, and those who need to will actually be able to use it. Also, that the software does something that should be useful to you. Open source software comes "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. So, who is promising that the software will run, that people will be able to use it and that it does something actually useful to the large enterprise? If the enterprise has never used that software, long time employees have usually no professional experience with it, so it is risky have them install and run it. In my limited experience, adoption of open source software by large enterprises comes most of the times through consultants, hired not to install the software but to solve a business problem. The consultants promise to solve the problem with the software, and that the software will run etc.

cyphar 10y ago
> Open source software comes "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. As far as I'm aware, most proprietary licenses have the same disclaimer. Have you ever seen Oracle getting sued when their database segfaults and loses data (in a similar way that a contractor would get sued for building a bridge that crashes)? You usually pay for support contracts with big enterprises, which have external guarantees and experts on call. Luckily, free software companies provide the same services without taking the freedom from the users of that software.
- corecoder 10y ago
  I'm not talking of the proprietary license, but of the exchange between buyer and seller. I've never talked to an Oracle salesperson, but I doubt that they'd say that the software isn't guaranteed to run and/or be useful. The same goes for FOSS when a consulting company is involved: they say that the software will work; my point is that that's the most likely way in which a large enterprise can run FOSS. There are other ways, of course: the decision can come from a high enough manager (or even from the CEO or CTO) who's willing to take the risk, but, indeed, they are taking a risk.

johannes1234321 10y ago

> Its easier to procure paid for software than open source in many large enterprises. This is one of the reasons for Dual licensing. You can use the open source version or procure a license.

montywi 10y ago
Agree. However Dual licensing (on GPL) only works with software that other companies want to embed into their Software. BSD was created to give similar benefits as Dual Licensing for software, like MaxScale, that is not embeddable. Dual licensing on GPL works by having users that want to redistribute the software under another license to pay. BSL works by having users that uses the software in more extreme conditions than normal to pay.