Over the last few years,
I've read a number of
articles on the open source
development model for
software. One of the themes
of these stories is how the
open source model for
software development is
superior to the commercial
model. Open source
development is, effectively,
many unrelated or related
developers collaboratively
producing software for the
free distribution,
improvement, and use of
anyone willing to abide by
the software license—such as
the GNU General Public
License (GPL) or Lesser
General Public License (LGPL).
Commercial software, by
contrast, is developed by
programmers employed by one
company (or in partnership
with many companies) for the
purpose of creating a
package that will be sold
and whose code is protected
through various intellectual
property mechanisms, such as
a patent and/or a copyright,
making that code
inaccessible to the
purchaser.
I realize that in many cases
open source software is also
protected by a copyright and
potentially a patent; the
main difference, however, is
that what I'm calling
"commercial" software
doesn't grant the user any
other rights beyond the use
of the software package,
whereas the typical open
source software license
provides broad rights to
modify the code and
distribute it, in whole or
in part, in any way the user
sees fit.
Proponents of the open
source model suggest that
these differences yield
"better" software and
encourage innovation.
We hope this article
provided you with valuable
information, which will help
you to make more informed
decisions. Please get in
touch with us at
sales@webesolution.com
if you are interested in our
service, or even if you
would just like to find out
more.
