Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Why do companies prefer proprietary products to GPL products?

Filed under
OSS

I do understand why companies often prefer BSD and Apache products to the GPL. But what I don't understand is why companies prefer proprietary over GPL. Let me emphasize, I'm talking about a product that is not related directly to core business secrets such as content management or a database.

The first reaction is, "with the GPL, we must make our changes publicly available." But I would ask, how is that different than a proprietary product, at least in a negative way? For instance, if we spend $100,000 on an IBM product, we have directly or indirectly paid for the development of that product. If we pay for IBM to enhance that product, we have directly paid for the development of features we find valuable. IBM will continue to sell that product to anyone that will pay, including our competitors.

If there is a competing GPL product that would require $50,000 to customize, and $50,000 in ongoing support (let's choose numbers that take cost out of the equation), most companies will take the proprietary route every time.

rest here




Nice try at spreading FUD.

Nice try at spreading FUD. Too bad your claims miss coherent logic, so it utterly fails.

LOL @ FUD

"GPL products are copyrighted by FSF, but no warranty or services to guarantee the bug free performance."

So, you wanted professional tech support for free? That's funny.

"You can also be sued for patent infringement, if you use GPL products."

I hate the be the one to break this to you, sunshine, but you can be sued for patent infringement if you use proprietary products. Proprietary software has a long history of legal battles. On the other hand, GPL software is probably the least risky, because it's squeaky clean. SCO has been pushing a well-funded lawsuit against linux since 2003 and have basically gotten nowhere, managing only to bankrupt their company and lose their customer base.

"Proprietary software, on that other hand, before you pay, can be supported by warranty or paid services to assure performance. You have someone to recover any damages or losses of revenue."

Ah, that's sad, yet funny. You really think there's a pot of gold there for the asking? Let me know how your lawsuit against microsoft goes.

"If you are poor and have nothing to lose, then you have to use GPL products. Otherwise pay your insurance and use proprietary software"

LOL, such inane stereotypes. Seriously, if you are poor and have nothing to lose, you probably use the microsoft windows that came with the peecee you bought at the goodwill store.

On the other hand, my daytime employer - a fortune 100 company - uses linux because it's powerful, flexible, reliable and very cost effective. Heck, we're saving millions by moving the oracle databases off of HPUX and onto Linux.

Atang, it will no doubt come as a shock to you, but my company has had paid support in place for both the hardware and the software on all the linux servers, for some years - which flies in the face of your idea that it's somehow impossible to get professional support for linux.

BTW I'm a gainfully employed professional. I can afford windows, but have no use for it. I use linux because it's the best platform. The only inconvenience is the tendencies for some firms to assume that all the world is a windoze peeceee - and that, thankfully, is becoming less and less a problem as time goes by.

re: Nice Try

What's not coherent? Atang1's comment is clear and correct.

Businesses are all about risk management, and proprietary software has WAY less inherent risk then Open Source.

Plus they offer a safety net of having a PROFITABLE company behind their product - so worse case, businesses always have the option of suing.

To say nothing of the fact that Proprietary software actually has professional Q&A teams instead of relying on a community that lives with the motto "if it's not good enough - code it yourself".

Re: Nice try

"proprietary software has WAY less inherent risk then Open Source"

On what basis do you make that claim?

"Plus they offer a safety net of having a PROFITABLE company behind their product"

Eh? So all software businesses are profitable? I could have sworn that many of them have gone out of business. Their customers? Screwed.

"so worse case, businesses always have the option of suing"

ROFL! Have you ever read the EULA for any commercial software product? It basically boils down to: "we are not responsible for anything, and our liability is limited to the cost of replacing the software if defective"

Oh dear, what on earth are they teaching in the schools these days?

Who needs the BIOS anyway?

**RANT ON**

M$ autoupdate is required to keep M$ 'secure' and to roll out features that were dropped from inital releases.
I am yet to see one useful feature pushed out through this service... whatever happened to WinFS???

If you rely on M$ rolling out updates you probably have a room full of botnets or you have spent far too long locking down windows after installing it... I seem to find it faster to lock down a Linux install rather than a windows one due to the better freely available documentation.

I recieve more regular updates through opensuse's build service than I ever did through windows autoupdate.

If you want to avoid being sued then you obay the copywright and liscences around the relevent software.

(And most patent probelms could also be solved by buying a liscence to use the apporpriate technology (as happens with mp3 players), not a perfect solution but it's a legal one that puts off lawsuits.)

***ALL*** BIOS updates/adjustments I have ever seen are pushed out through the manufacturer and surprise, surprise, ASUS supports my Desktop mobo through Linux as well!

(sidenote: I would love to see an end to the BIOS as I'm getting fed up of waiting at the POST screen. but as long as windows relys on it why should manufacturers replace it)

**RANT OFF**

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Linux Mint 18.1 Is The Best Mint Yet

The hardcore Linux geeks won’t read this article. They’ll skip right past it… They don’t like Linux Mint much. There’s a good reason for them not to; it’s not designed for them. Linux Mint is for folks who want a stable, elegant desktop operating system that they don’t want to have to constantly tinker with. Anyone who is into Linux will find Mint rather boring because it can get as close to the bleeding edge of computer technology. That said, most of those same hardcore geeks will privately tell you that they’ve put Linux Mint on their Mom’s computer and she just loves it. Linux Mint is great for Mom. It’s stable, offers everything she needs and its familiar UI is easy for Windows refugees to figure out. If you think of Arch Linux as a finicky, high-performance sports car then Linux Mint is a reliable station wagon. The kind of car your Mom would drive. Well, I have always liked station wagons myself and if you’ve read this far then I guess you do, too. A ride in a nice station wagon, loaded with creature comforts, cold blowing AC, and a good sound system can be very relaxing, indeed. Read more

Make Gnome 3 more accessible for everyday use

Gnome 3 is a desktop environment that was created to fix a problem that did not exist. Much like PulseAudio, Wayland and Systemd, it's there to give developers a job, while offering no clear benefit over the original problem. The Gnome 2 desktop was fast, lithe, simple, and elegant, and its replacement is none of that. Maybe the presentation layer is a little less busy and you can search a bit more quickly, but that's about as far as the list of advantages goes, which is a pretty grim result for five years of coding. Despite my reservation toward Gnome 3, I still find it to be a little bit more suitable for general consumption than in the past. Some of the silly early decisions have been largely reverted, and a wee bit more sane functionality added. Not enough. Which is why I'd like to take a moment or three to discuss some extra tweaks and changes you should add to this desktop environment to make it palatable. Read more

When to Use Which Debian Linux Repository

Nothing distinguishes the Debian Linux distribution so much as its system of package repositories. Originally organized into Stable, Testing, and Unstable, additional repositories have been added over the years, until today it takes more than a knowledge of a repository's name to understand how to use it efficiently and safely. Debian repositories are installed with a section called main that consists only of free software. However, by editing the file /etc/apt/sources.list, you can add contrib, which contains software that depends on proprietary software, and non-free, which contains proprietary software. Unless you choose to use only free software, contrib and non-free are especially useful for video and wireless drivers. You should also know that the three main repositories are named for characters from the Toy Story movies. Unstable is always called Sid, while the names of Testing and Stable change. When a new version of Debian is released, Testing becomes Stable, and the new version of Testing receives a name. These names are sometimes necessary for enabling a mirror site, but otherwise, ignoring these names gives you one less thing to remember. Read more

Today in Techrights