a silly question for Open Source Software

[www]

Hi,

I know this is not a Java question. But it is somehow Java related,
because this Open Source Software is developed in Java, plus I don't
know where else to ask this question.

The government institute I am working for is going to adopt an Open
Source Software(OSS) from a company XYZ to replace the commercial
software(commercial off-the-shelf, COTS). XYZ will provide support to
the institute(i.e. The government institute has to pay XYZ big money, so
it is not FREE).

I just read the following from internet for comparing between OSS and COTS:

"While traditional COTS typically
depends on monopoly support with one company providing support and
“holding all the
cards” (i.e., access to the code) for a piece of software, the publicly
available source code for
OSS enables many vendors to learn the platform and provide support.
Because OSS vendors
compete against one another to provide support, the quality of support
increases while the
end-user cost of receiving the support decreases."

One idea came to me:

After obtaining this software and learning about it(it is OSS, so source
code is available, right?), I form a new company myself to provide
support to the institute. Of course, my company offer cheaper price for
supporting. Will this work?

Another thing I don't understand is: I know the software is Open Source,
but it belongs to a company. How could this be?

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

I know this is not a Java question. But it is somehow Java related,
because this Open Source Software is developed in Java, plus I don't
know where else to ask this question.

Ignorance is not an excuse. But I think it's interesting, so I won't
complain

The government institute I am working for is going to adopt an Open
Source Software(OSS) from a company XYZ to replace the commercial
software(commercial off-the-shelf, COTS). XYZ will provide support to
the institute(i.e. The government institute has to pay XYZ big money,
so it is not FREE).

I just read the following from internet for comparing between OSS and COTS:

"While traditional COTS typically
depends on monopoly support with one company providing support and
“holding all the
cards” (i.e., access to the code) for a piece of software, the
publicly available source code for
OSS enables many vendors to learn the platform and provide
support. Because OSS vendors
compete against one another to provide support, the quality of support
increases while the
end-user cost of receiving the support decreases."

The number of Microsoft, Oracle or other large product supporters
suggests that this is not a hard rule. Ofcourse, the major company
creating the large product will often make money on certifications

One idea came to me:

After obtaining this software and learning about it(it is OSS, so
source code is available, right?),

Not necessarily. They can distribute software under, e.g., the BSD
license without also distributing source.

I form a new company myself to
provide support to the institute. Of course, my company offer cheaper
price for supporting. Will this work?

Is it legal? Absolutely, subject to the default disclaimer: I am not a
lawyer, this is not legal advise, local laws may differ, etc.

Will they hire you? Who knows.

Will the contract even allow them to hire you for the foreseeable
future? They surely know, but probably won't tell

Another thing I don't understand is: I know the software is Open
Source, but it belongs to a company. How could this be?

Software belongs to its author (or rather, the monopoly rights
granted by copyright law does), unless they have sold it to someone
else.

The author can license the software to anybody else under whatever
terms they want to (subject to local law). Those terms can be those
of an open source license.

Nothing, short of a separate contract, prevents the receiver from
using the software according to that open source license, and, e.g.,
give it to someone else. However, if the open source license is
incompatible with commercial exploitation, the company can still
sell the software for commercial purposes under another license.

/L

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I just read the following from internet for comparing between OSS and COTS:

"While traditional COTS typically
depends on monopoly support with one company providing support and
“holding all the
cards” (i.e., access to the code) for a piece of software, the publicly
available source code for
OSS enables many vendors to learn the platform and provide support.
Because OSS vendors
compete against one another to provide support, the quality of support
increases while the
end-user cost of receiving the support decreases."

One idea came to me:

After obtaining this software and learning about it(it is OSS, so source
code is available, right?), I form a new company myself to provide
support to the institute. Of course, my company offer cheaper price for
supporting. Will this work?

Yes.

Assuming you are so smart that you can fix problems faster than
the people that wrote the code.

Another thing I don't understand is: I know the software is Open Source,
but it belongs to a company. How could this be?

Somebody wrote the code and assigned the open source license to it.

Whether that constitute "belongs" is terminology.

Arne

 

[Mike Schilling]

Yes.

Assuming you are so smart that you can fix problems faster than
the people that wrote the code.

It's not necessarily true that the people who wrote the code are the
same ones who maintain it, or even that they're still around to be
consulted.

 

[Andreas Leitgeb]

It's not necessarily true that the people who wrote the code are the
same ones who maintain it, or even that they're still around to be
consulted.

There are two more caveats for "www" to consider:
a) you must be willing to be available within a certain span of time
whenever any problem occurs, even if you're in holidays or fast
asleep after last night's party when it happens
b) you must successfully convince the institute, that you're indeed
able to fulfill "a)"

 

[Gordon Beaton]

Not necessarily. They can distribute software under, e.g., the BSD
license without also distributing source.

Well, that would hardly qualify as "open source"...

/gordon

--

 

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Well, that would hardly qualify as "open source"...

Not as distributed, no. But I wouldn't be surprised if a company
advertises that they are "using open source" and then not distribute
the code *as* open source. I don't have enough information to make
any guarantees in the case at hand

/L

 

[www]

Somebody wrote the code and assigned the open source license to it.

Can you explain this to me a little more? Thank you.

 

[www]

Yes.

Assuming you are so smart that you can fix problems faster than
the people that wrote the code.

I believe my smartness is more or less on the same level as those
programmers in that company, which will provide support to the
institute. I have been and will continue to fully work on this system,
so my familiarity to the system is about the same level to those people
too, I guess.

Somebody wrote the code and assigned the open source license to it.

Can you explain a little more to me? Thank you.

 

[www]

There are two more caveats for "www" to consider:
a) you must be willing to be available within a certain span of time
whenever any problem occurs, even if you're in holidays or fast
asleep after last night's party when it happens
b) you must successfully convince the institute, that you're indeed
able to fulfill "a)"

I don't understand supporting and consulting services. We have been
testing using their software system. We communicate to them by emails.
On average, there is about one email one week.

This is only testing phase. Once we have decided to use that software,
which is open source software, we will choose that company for service
and maintainance. I don't know how much we will bother them. No matter
what, I can't imagine we will bother them like crazy. If that is the
case, that software must be a crappy one.

 

[Lew]

Can you explain this to me a little more? Thank you.

What part is not clear?

When you are the copyright owner of a copyright work, you control the terms
under which others may publish that work. That control is embodied in a
formal set of terms known as a "license". That license delineates the
conditions under which the licensee may use the product.

By definition, the author of a work is the first copyright holder. In most
countries copyright inheres without the burden of publication or copyright
registration by the author; authorship suffices.

So, "somebody wrote the code" - this makes them the author and copyright
holder - "and assigned the ... license to it" - the copyright owner gets to
determine the license under which people use the code. In the case of
open-source code, the author (copyright owner) assigns an open-source license.

 

[Lew]

Can you explain a little more to me? Thank you.

You already asked the identical question. There is an answer to the previous
post of that question.

 

[RedGrittyBrick]

I believe my smartness is more or less on the same level as those
programmers in that company, which will provide support to the
institute. I have been and will continue to fully work on this system,
so my familiarity to the system is about the same level to those people
too, I guess.

In your original posting you implied that the company providing the
support is the company which developed the software.

You are unlikely to be as thoroughly familiar with the source code as
the person or persons who wrote it and who have, presumably, been making
corrections and improvements to it more or less continuously.

You asked (perhaps rhetorically) whether OSS meant the source would be
available. This implies to me that you have not yet obtained and read
the source code. If this is the case you would initially be at a
significant disadvantage and would inevitably take longer to respond to
problems than the original programmers whilst you familiarised yourself
with the source code.

A lot of support problems are about how to use the software (rather than
reporting bugs that need fixing in the source code). Again, if you have
not already been using the software for sufficiently long to be regarded
as an expert in it, I'd expect the developer's support team to be faster
and better at providing guidance in how to use the software. The
developers may have many customers and have dealt with customer
enquiries relating to a wide range of different ways of using the software.

I may be wrong but you seem to be unenthusiastic about the software. I
suspect that, in order to provide the best support to end-users, you
need to radiate positivity about the product.

I think others mentioned the issues of support hours (e.g. 8x5 vs 24x7)
and holiday/sickness cover.

Often a support contract will cover things like response times,
escalation procedures and redress in the event that a problem is not
satisfactorily resolved. If you are new to this sort of thing you might
want help in drawing up support contract between your new company and
the institute.

You may well be able to provide an adequate or better service at lower
cost, I'd be careful not to underestimate the task though.

 

[Mike Schilling]

I don't understand supporting and consulting services. We have been
testing using their software system. We communicate to them by emails. On
average, there is about one email one week.

This is only testing phase. Once we have decided to use that software,
which is open source software, we will choose that company for service and
maintainance. I don't know how much we will bother them. No matter what, I
can't imagine we will bother them like crazy. If that is the case, that
software must be a crappy one.

Many people using software in production want a guaranteed level of reponse
if something goes wrong,

 

[Larry A Barowski]

After obtaining this software and learning about it(it is OSS, so source
code is available, right?), I form a new company myself to provide support
to the institute. Of course, my company offer cheaper price for
supporting. Will this work?

The support will include updates. If the software is under
constant and rapid development, the version that you are
supporting may quickly become obsolete. Changes and
fixes that you make will be incompatible with changes
and fixes in the main branch.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Well, that would hardly qualify as "open source"...

No.

A BSD license includes source. But the BSD license is not
copyleft.

Meaning that:
- A gives B software X in both source and binary under BSD license
and that is open source
- B takes the source in incorporate it in software Y and gives binary
only of that to C (as close source)
is possible.

Arne