Open and closed source software is more complicated than you think...

[Mazza558]

I think that you can't really classify the openness of software based on the code itself. I'd say that there are more types of software freedom than are usually implied:

Open source - software free to use/modify/redistribute, no particular company "in control" of updates and upgrades to the software. This encompasses a lot of small projects and programs (such as AWN), as well as some major distributions.

Open source, closed business - Open source code written by a company, shared, redistributed, etc, but the highest quality code comes from the company employees, and so less user-written code is intergrated into the company's version of the product. In general, most users here just go with the company software rather than community-built stuff. I'm not entirely sure here, but perhaps an example of this is Mozilla Firefox.

Closed source, open business - The code is completely under wraps, but the company has close relations with the community, and while the community itself can't modify the code, plenty of suggestions by the community are added to the product, and therefore both the company and its community are very satisfied. The company in this case allows user-written code to be used for addons or widgets. A good example of this kind of company is Opera.

Closed source, closed business - Both the code and business practices are essentially under wraps. This seems to be the model of corporations with thousands of international employees, forming an internal community of code. Companies like these typically have reputations for overpriced software, poor customer relations due to the sheer size of the company's range of software, but nevertheless, make a huge profit due to sly business practices.

-----

What do you think?

[Havoc]

Quite a good classification, and the examples are pretty good. Mozilla has most of its software under MPL/GPL and/or EULAs (for binary redistribution), which have some clauses concerning trademarks and such. Several spin-off projects have surfaced, that bypass these problems. Iceweasel is one.

[popch]

I do not think that classification all that useful.

The fourth case - Closed source, closed business - strikes me as a very one-sided representation. In my professional live I have used many software products in that category. All of the given parameters (responsiveness to user requirements/suggestions, price model and so on) vary widely. It simply not true that the particular combination of traits in the OP applies to the majority of producers of software in this class.

I haven't studied the other cases as closely, so I can't really say if they are any closer to the mark.

[Mazza558]

I do not think that classification all that useful.

The fourth case - Closed source, closed business - strikes me as a very one-sided representation. In my professional live I have used many software products in that category. All of the given parameters (responsiveness to user requirements/suggestions, price model and so on) vary widely. It simply not true that the particular combination of traits in the OP applies to the majority of producers of software in this class.

I haven't studied the other cases as closely, so I can't really say if they are any closer to the mark.

But how can closed business ever be good for consumer relations, unless the company itself is very competent?

[popch]

But how can closed business ever be good for consumer relations, unless the company itself is very competent?

You have said it - by the companies being competent. Not every software company is incompetent.

Right now I.work with a supplier which is very responsive to customer's needs. They take pride by learning from their customers.

[Mazza558]

You have said it - by the companies being competent. Not every software company is incompetent.

Right now I.work with a supplier which is very responsive to customer's needs. They take pride by learning from their customers.

Therefore, your company falls under the category "Open business", more so than closed business.

[popch]

Therefore, your company falls under the category "Open business", more so than closed business.

True. That particular example I had in mind would fall into that category.

However, other companies I bought from definitely fell into the closed type, with very reasonably prices, great support, great products.

[Mazza558]

True. That particular example I had in mind would fall into that category.

However, other companies I bought from definitely fell into the closed type, with very reasonably prices, great support, great products.

Fair enough, but I think the tendency for these company types is to get more and more lazy, as well as overcharging for products. This is especially the case if they have a monopoly over the market. I think that it is in the nature of these companies to start off fair to consumers, but gravitate more to absolute profit and power. It's only when strong competition arrives, that these companies "wake up".

[popch]

I think the tendency for these company types is to get more and more lazy, as well as overcharging for products. This is especially the case if they have a monopoly over the market. I think that it is in the nature of these companies to start off fair to consumers, but gravitate more to absolute profit and power.

Have you got any data or observations to substantiate that claim? In my experience there are outfits which are decent and those who are not. It is not a question of size.

Decent ones I had business with were Scitor and Textmaker.

Those I found less enjoyable were SAP, MS and two small local outfits you wouldn't know.

[argie]

I do not think that classification all that useful.

The fourth case - Closed source, closed business - strikes me as a very one-sided representation. In my professional live I have used many software products in that category. All of the given parameters (responsiveness to user requirements/suggestions, price model and so on) vary widely. It simply not true that the particular combination of traits in the OP applies to the majority of producers of software in this class.

I haven't studied the other cases as closely, so I can't really say if they are any closer to the mark.

I don't get it. Like you said, some closed source companies respond well to suggestions of the users/have good prices/... , by the OP's definition that puts them in category 3.

They can't be in category 4 and be responsive to user suggestions. It's just defined like that. If they were, then they'd be Cat3.

I'm rather uninterested in this whole matter, but I couldn't resist sticking my nose in.