I was pointed at this article by Craig Reardon, in which he claims that open source software and small business doesn't mix. After reading through it I first checked the calender to ensure I hadn't fell through a time vortex to 2002 and then thought I should respond, both as a small business operator and a provider of services to businesses large and small based on open source software.

First off let me make absolutely clear my interest in this:

• I am an avid supporter of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)
• I have been an ordinary Committee member of Linux Australia, the peak community body representing the FOSS community in Australia
• I run my business on FOSS.
• The services I provide to my clients are where possible, FOSS based.
• I am not merely a "Consulting Webmaster" but I understand the technologies underneath the shiny wrapping

So now that's out of the way, lets get into the meat of things.

First up lets deal with Craigs description of Free Software vs Proprietary.

By and large he gets it right, where he goes completely off the rails is in the following two paragraphs:

"The beauty of proprietary software is not only are people paid to look after the performance of your software, but often upgrades and other benefits are provided for no additional cost.

Unlike open source technology, where usually not only do you have to be made aware that an upgrade exists, you then have to pay someone to implement it."

Sorry Craig but I'm going to have to call you on this one.

Proprietary software by its very nature relies on the upgrade cycle to generate an ongoing income. The idea being that once you have a customer locked into your technology they have to follow your upgrade path otherwise risk falling behind and falling out of support. Some examples of this include the Microsoft Office Suite, every single anti-virus package, CRM packages etc, etc. Oh and by and large, unless the SME has in house expertise, they will be paying someone from outside to implement the upgrade.

Open source software on the other hand does not rely on an upgrade cycle to generate income. Rather minor upgrades and security releases are generally done as soon as they are ready, while major upgrades are released once they are ready, rather than according to a marketing time table. Once again the SME will be relying on an external party to doing the updating, unless they have the internal skills.

The next furphy to deal with is the idea that with open source software there is "no one to blame". Craig claims that business suffers because there is no one to sue if something goes wrong with the software they are using. This is wrong on several different levels.

There are any number of businesses that offer to support and develop FOSS based services. These range from small one or two person operations through to multi-nationals like RedHat, IBM and Oracle. Each of these organisations take on the responsibility for maintaining their clients software assetts and systems, according of course to the terms of the contracts they sign. In fact it is more likely to be the service provider rather than the provider of software who becomes the target of any law suit resulting from negligence.

Following up close behind in the list of FUD is the idea that FOSS is Free as in no cash down do what you like with it. It's not. Free and Open Source Software is so named because it is licensed in such a way as to ensure the user of the software is able to do things like make changes to the software and finetune the system to meet their own requirements (or pay someone who can do it for them) without being locked down by the original author. The Free comes from the term Freedom. Anyone who tells you that FOSS is simply free as in beer is leading you astray.

This is why I say the upgrade cycle that proprietary software relies on to generate income can't work in FOSS. Because the code is open, users are free to make changes and share them with other users. They are free to create fixes for bugs and submit them back to the orginal package, or they are free to take the original software and fork it into a new direction. This creates a benefit for SME in that if they are looking for a new feature, they can now turn to their fellow users and see if anyone else has produced a fix for the same issue.

The following paragraph neatly ties together everything wrong about Craigs article:

"Because when your website falls over, or when your developer goes on a sabbatical, or when an upgrade is not only expensive but ‘hasn’t really been done before’ and a myriad of other issues, not only do you not have anyone to pursue and seek remedy and/or compensation from.

Which begs the question, if it ain’t broke why fix it? Or if the business model of proprietary software works completely satisfactorily, why change it?

Non-free systems are accountable, supported and are constantly improving, otherwise they go out of business.

It’s a natural protection mechanism to ensure that you get the best technology you can afford."

I'm sorry but the above is patently and provably false. If your system falls over then your system hasn't been setup correctly. Negligence happens in the proprietary world as much as the FOSS world (if not more so). If your developer has skived off for a holiday before completing an essential feature (say for your Sharepoint intranet) then thats breach of contract. The licensing of the software in no way changes the business relationship between your business and your service provider.

I would also like to point out that the producers of non-free systems go out of their way to ensure they reduce any liability they are exposed to from the workings of their software. Have you read the End User License Agreement that comes with your PC?