Oct 14 2009

“Free” can be not “Free forever”

I'm an estimator of free applications even in business environment.

Free software and services become more comfortable, more productive, more "standard", more and more professional and they actually permit a successfully application in business environments.
My company uses extensively free software like Firebird, Firefox, Thunderbird, Freemind, Joomla, WordPress, Debian, Lingoes, just to mention some.

Free software is great but "All that glitters isn't gold"! Some threats may break the dream of completely free software.

Changes in licensing
First of all a software that is free today can not be free forever!
A recent example comes from PostBox, a new e-mail client based on thunderbird (wrote by the former thunderbird's developers) originally claimed as "a free e-mail client" and switched to commercial in September once the first stable release appeared and after a lot of users tested the beta versions. In this case the testing of the user was free not the product!
This is not the only case in which the owner changes the licensing of the software. Is quite common that a company launches a free version of a software and than switches to commercial licensing once the number of installation is considerable. This is made in order to reach a wide audience because of the freedom of the product, have a big number of users willing to test beta versions, create expectation before trying to transform users in customers.

I dislike intensely this behaviour, because is not fair!

Obsolescence
Even if the "freedom" promise is real, the developer team may not be really interested in maintaining the development live, so the product runs toward a slow but sure obsolescence.

Free mean "at your own risk"
If you pay nothing to get a things you also get no warranties about that things and no support in case of problems.
In case of problems one can usually rely on web-communities only (if active).

Free software doesn't mean "zero money investment"
The total cost of a software solution is not only the pure cost of the license, very often the most important costs are the analysis and selection of software and the training of HR.

So, mainly in business, I apply some rules with the aim to discover "Free software" solutions that are also good deals.

Prefer open-source
Close-source free products are the best candidates to get involved in the situation previously depicted.
The owner of source codes can switch from a licence to another and decide about the life-cycle of the product.
Even open-source projects can die because of lack of development, but in case of crucial business involved the last chance is to directly support the development.

Prefer solutions based on wide community
The more the product is widely used and the development team is active, the more the software would thrive for long.

Plan the way-out
Even if the project is promising good things try to answer the question:"what if the project will die?". Some ways out can be:

  • Start maintaining the code (maybe really expensive in term of resources...)
  • Switch to an existing fork or equivalent product
  • Build a new similar product from scratch
  • Buy a commercial version if exists

The way-out plan is mandatory if the free product or service is part of the core business. It would be unacceptable to build an important business over a weak solution or a solution with an uncertain future!
This means that in general is a bad choice to use free-closed-source software in core businesses.

I'm an estimator of <strong>free applications</strong> even in business environment.

Last years free softwares and services become more <strong>confortable</strong>, more <strong>productive</strong>, more "<strong>standard</strong>", more and more <strong>professional </strong>and they actually permit a <strong>successflully </strong>application in <strong>business </strong>evironments.
My company makes extended use of free softwares like <a href="http://www.firebirdsql.org/">Firebird</a>, <a href="http://www.mozilla-europe.org/it/firefox/">Firefox</a>, <a href="http://www.mozillaitalia.it/thunderbird/index.html">Thunderbird</a>, <a href="http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page">Freemind</a>, <a href="http://www.joomla.org/">Joomla</a>, <a href="http://wordpress.org/">WordPress</a>, <a href="http://www.debian.org/">Debian</a>, <a href="http://www.lingoes.net/">Lingoes</a>, just to mention some.

<em>Free software is great but "All that glitters isn't gold"!  Some <strong>threats </strong>may break the dream of have really free software.
</em>

<em>Changes in licensing</em>
First of all a software that is free today can not be <strong>free forever</strong>!
A recent example comes from <strong>PostBox</strong>, a new e-mail client based on thunderbird (write by the original thunderbird's developers) originally claimed as "a new and free e-mail client" and<strong> switched to commercial</strong> in september once the first stable release appeared and after a lot of users tested the beta versions.
This is not the only case in which the license owner <strong>changes the licensing </strong>of the software. Is quite common in last months that a company launches a free version of a software and than switched to commercial licensing once the number of installation is considerable. This is made in order to reach a wide audience because of the freedom of the product, have a big number of users willing to test beta versions, create expectation before trying to transform users in customers.

<strong>I dislike intensely this behaviour, because is not fair!</strong>

<em>Obsolescence</em>
Even if the "freedom" promise is real, the developer team may not be really interested in <strong>mantaining </strong>the development live, so the product runs toward a slow but sure <strong>obsolescence</strong>.

<em>Free mean "at your own risk" </em>
If you pay nothing to get a thing you also get <strong>no warranties</strong> about that thing and <strong>no support</strong> in case of problems.
In case of problems one can usually rely on <strong>web-communities </strong>only.

<em>Free software doesn't mean "zero money investment"</em>
Business-men know very well that the total cost of a software solution is not only the <strong>pure cost of the license</strong>, very often the most important costs are the <strong>analysis </strong>and <strong>selection </strong>of software and the <strong>training </strong>of HR.

So, mainly in business, I apply some <strong>rules </strong>with the aim to discover "Free software" solutions that aren't <strong>good deals</strong>.

<strong>Prefer open-source</strong>
Close-source free products are the best candidates to get involved in the situation previously depicted.
The owner of source codes can switch from a licence to another and decide about the life-cicly of the product.
Even open-source projects can die out because lack of development, in case of crucial business as last chance one can support the development directly.

<strong>Prefer solutions based on wide community</strong>
The more the product is widely used and the development team is active the more the software would thrive for long.

<strong>Plan the way-out</strong>
Even if the project is promising try to answer the question:"what if the project will die?". Some ways out can be:
<ul>
<li>Start mantaining the code (maybe really expensive in term of resources...)</li>
<li>Switch to an existing fork or equivalent product</li>
<li>Build a new similar product from scratch</li>
<li>Buy a commercial version if exists</li>
</ul>
The way-out plan is <strong>mandatory </strong>if the free product or service is part of the <strong>core business</strong>. It would be unacceptable to build an important business over a weak solution or a solution with an uncertain future!
This means that in general is not a good choice using free-closed-source softwares in core businesses.

Comments Off

Comments are closed at this time.