FOSS protects its users from licensing
Proprietary vendors make money from the sale of licenses, and are imposing increasingly complex mechanisms on consumers to manage these licenses. For example, Microsoft’s Windows XP requires product activation - a scheme that means that an accumulation of hardware changes requires a new activation code. A license no longer gives unlimited rights to reinstall - if you have hardware trouble, you may end up being forced to re-buy your product. Indeed, for a variety of reasons, businesses are finding that they must buy the same proprietary software more than once.
Proprietary vendors also litigate against those who don’t comply with their complex licensing management requirements, creating increased legal risks for users. For example, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) is a proprietary software industry organization sponsored by Microsoft, Macromedia, and Autodesk, and spends considerable time searching for and punishing companies who cannot prove they are complying.
Software Licensing by Andrew Grygus discusses the risks and costs of proprietary licensing schemes in more detail. According to their article, “the maximum penalty is $150,000 per license deficiency; typically, this is negotiated down, and a company found deficient at around $8,000 will pay a penalty of around $85,000 (and must buy the $8,000 in software too).” For example, information services for the city of Virginia Beach, VA were practically shut down for over a month and 5 employees (1/4th of their staff) had to be dedicated to put its licensing in order to answer a random audit demand by Microsoft, at a cost of over $80,000. Eventually the city was fined $129,000 for missing licenses the city had probably paid for but couldn’t match to paperwork. Temple University had to pay $100,000 to the BSA, in spite of strong policies forbidding unauthorized copying.
To counter these risks, organizations must keep careful track of license purchases. This means that organizations must impose strict software license tracking processes, purchase costly tracking programs, and pay for people to keep track of these licenses and perform occasional audits.
In contrast, OSS/FS users have no fear of litigation from the use and copying of OSS/FS. Licensing issues do come up when OSS/FS software is modified and then redistributed, but to be fair, proprietary software essentially forbids this action.
References
David, A. (2007). Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! Retrieved from http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
Other important sources
Robert, C & Richard C. (2004) . Free and Open Source Software. Overview and Preliminary Guidelines for the Government of Canada. Retrieved from www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov_Canada-OSS_Guide-Dec04.pdf
Allen, G. (2008). Good to Great FOSS: Learnings from Africa . Retrieved from www.aspirationtech.org/files/GoodToGreatFOSS-LearningsFromAfrica.pdf
Kenneth, W.(2004). Free/Open Source Software: Government Policy. Retrieved from http://www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov-OSS_Guide-04.pdf
Proprietary vendors also litigate against those who don’t comply with their complex licensing management requirements, creating increased legal risks for users. For example, the Business Software Alliance (BSA) is a proprietary software industry organization sponsored by Microsoft, Macromedia, and Autodesk, and spends considerable time searching for and punishing companies who cannot prove they are complying.
Software Licensing by Andrew Grygus discusses the risks and costs of proprietary licensing schemes in more detail. According to their article, “the maximum penalty is $150,000 per license deficiency; typically, this is negotiated down, and a company found deficient at around $8,000 will pay a penalty of around $85,000 (and must buy the $8,000 in software too).” For example, information services for the city of Virginia Beach, VA were practically shut down for over a month and 5 employees (1/4th of their staff) had to be dedicated to put its licensing in order to answer a random audit demand by Microsoft, at a cost of over $80,000. Eventually the city was fined $129,000 for missing licenses the city had probably paid for but couldn’t match to paperwork. Temple University had to pay $100,000 to the BSA, in spite of strong policies forbidding unauthorized copying.
To counter these risks, organizations must keep careful track of license purchases. This means that organizations must impose strict software license tracking processes, purchase costly tracking programs, and pay for people to keep track of these licenses and perform occasional audits.
In contrast, OSS/FS users have no fear of litigation from the use and copying of OSS/FS. Licensing issues do come up when OSS/FS software is modified and then redistributed, but to be fair, proprietary software essentially forbids this action.
References
David, A. (2007). Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! Retrieved from http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
Other important sources
Robert, C & Richard C. (2004) . Free and Open Source Software. Overview and Preliminary Guidelines for the Government of Canada. Retrieved from www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov_Canada-OSS_Guide-Dec04.pdf
Allen, G. (2008). Good to Great FOSS: Learnings from Africa . Retrieved from www.aspirationtech.org/files/GoodToGreatFOSS-LearningsFromAfrica.pdf
Kenneth, W.(2004). Free/Open Source Software: Government Policy. Retrieved from http://www.sita.co.za/FOSS/Gov-OSS_Guide-04.pdf