<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Commercial Open Source: Faster, Better, Cheaper, and More Easily?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dirkriehle.com/2009/05/19/commercial-open-source-faster-better-cheaper-and-more-easily/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2009/05/19/commercial-open-source-faster-better-cheaper-and-more-easily/</link>
	<description>Dirk Riehle&#039;s blog about everything computer science, applied and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:23:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dirk Riehle</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2009/05/19/commercial-open-source-faster-better-cheaper-and-more-easily/#comment-297</link>
		<dc:creator>Dirk Riehle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=942#comment-297</guid>
		<description>Hi Tarus, thank for the comment, but I challenge you to &quot;proof&quot; it to me.

Every commercial open source vendor I know tries to skew the situation to its own benefit such that it becomes really hard if not impossible for the customer to &quot;continue without them since the software is free.&quot;

There are many ways of keeping customers locked in. The open core model, where you lock-in customers with proprietary extensions, is one form. You don&#039;t get lock-in by way of copyright if you only use the free community edition, but of course by way of trademarks and patents, really rabid vendors would still be able to get to you... (not that this would be smart).

I think the notion of &quot;free as in freedom&quot; is overhyped with most commercial open source software.

Dirk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Tarus, thank for the comment, but I challenge you to &#8220;proof&#8221; it to me.</p>
<p>Every commercial open source vendor I know tries to skew the situation to its own benefit such that it becomes really hard if not impossible for the customer to &#8220;continue without them since the software is free.&#8221;</p>
<p>There are many ways of keeping customers locked in. The open core model, where you lock-in customers with proprietary extensions, is one form. You don&#8217;t get lock-in by way of copyright if you only use the free community edition, but of course by way of trademarks and patents, really rabid vendors would still be able to get to you&#8230; (not that this would be smart).</p>
<p>I think the notion of &#8220;free as in freedom&#8221; is overhyped with most commercial open source software.</p>
<p>Dirk</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tarus</title>
		<link>http://dirkriehle.com/2009/05/19/commercial-open-source-faster-better-cheaper-and-more-easily/#comment-296</link>
		<dc:creator>Tarus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dirkriehle.com/?p=942#comment-296</guid>
		<description>You left off that open source shifts the power over the software from the vendor to the client. The vendor then has to work harder to prove their value (and their prices) since the client can always continue on without them since the source is free.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You left off that open source shifts the power over the software from the vendor to the client. The vendor then has to work harder to prove their value (and their prices) since the client can always continue on without them since the source is free.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

