Skip to Content
Last modified by chrisby on 2025/01/11 10:03
From version 2.69
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/01 12:02
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 2.66
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/01 11:55
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
42 42  The FSF sees several problems with permissive licenses:
43 43  
44 44  * Permissive code allows vendors to include it in their proprietary products. Software that is partially open source does not necessarily make it more secure. For example, in a product that is 99% open source, the remaining 1% proprietary part may contain all the malicious code. This means that the partially open source product poses the same dangers as a 100% proprietary product. 100% open source code running on your own machine is a necessary condition to achieve freedom and security.
45 -* Another problem is that vendors can reuse permissive code without any obligation to share improvements. The vendor writes new proprietary or closed source code based on the open source code and keeps those improvements for himself. This means that the work of the open source community can be used for the vendor's financial benefit without anything being given back. Worse, the proprietary product may outcompete the original open source project, reducing its impact and harming the open source ecosystem. This is called "proprietary capture" or "open core hijacking".
45 +* Another problem is that vendors can reuse permissive code without any obligation to share improvements. The vendor writes new proprietary or closed source code based on the open source code and keeps those improvements for himself. This means that the work of the open source community can be used for the vendor's financial benefit without anything being given back. Worse, the proprietary product may outcompete the original open source project, reducing its impact and harming the open source ecosystem. This is called "proprietary capture" or "open core hijacking".
46 46  * There is also the problem of fragmentation. Multiple vendors may each create their own proprietary product based on the same permissive code. Instead of collaborating and contributing back to the common core project, they are inefficiently duplicating their efforts.
47 47  
48 48  **Copyleft Licenses**
... ... @@ -69,4 +69,4 @@
69 69  
70 70  **Why should people with no technical expertise care about open source? Speaking of people who cannot even read the source code.**
71 71  
72 -* Even if you do not have the expertise to examine or modify the source code yourself, open source software allows you to engage specialists who can adapt the software to meet your needs. The main advantages is the data protection and the reducing dependence on a single vendor. Therefore, from a purely profit-driven perspective, choosing open source may be the more economical option.
72 +* Even if you cannot read or modify the source code yourself, open source gives you the ability to hire experts to customize or improve the software to meet your needs. You can also benefit from the contributions and improvements made by the open source community. In contrast, proprietary software limits your control and often makes you dependent on the vendor for updates and changes. Managers should consider the long-term benefits of open source software, such as flexibility, community-driven innovation, and freedom from vendor lock-in.