It's been weird to not see much discussion about this abomination that Qt put out recently: https://www.qt.io/blog/is-open-source-really-free
1. Just because something is open source, doesn't mean you cannot get support for it. There are plenty of companies that offer support for open source software, and yes, this costs money. But the general rule of thumb is that $1 of open source support replaces $10 of proprietary revenue.
2. All software has licenses, even from proprietary vendors. But proprietary licenses have no standards, each and every one should be reviewed before acceptance. And they can also change at the drop of a hat and _you have no recourse_. Having a standard set of licenses, and a community that could support a fork are both value unique to open source.
3. Reviewing compliance is a thing with or without actually using open source software. Even if you say "we don't use open source software", that doesn't actually stop anyone from doing some copy-posta of code from some website.
1. You can get support sometimes - the question is at what price and at what quality and at what timeliness. Open source is no cure here.
A quick test: I googled "support for scipy" and found zero places I can buy fixes or support in the many pages I clicked through. I googled "support for Mathematica" and top hit (and the entire first page) were all support.
Try the same thing for any open source project, and the comparable commercial product, and tell me which seems to have more support available.
>general rule of thumb is that $1 of open source support replaces $10 of proprietary revenue.
That "rule of thumb" doesn't show up in a google search except for your comment. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Clarify?
2. "But proprietary licenses have no standards": every single proprietary license I've bought or been on the group deciding what to license has been nearly trivial - usually you buy an outright license to use as you will (and no open source gotchas to worry about what code touches what), or has been some tiered revenue/sales thing, all trivial to navigate. They are much easier than all but an open source "use for anything at will" license. And they don't trigger a host of legal issues. And there are dozens of open source licenses in common use, each with a host of legal issues to work out. This is why legal depts on every project I've needed to integrate must oversee each item we want to integrate, but not on buying licenses from proprietary vendors.
3. Proprietary code is backed by a vendor you can sue when you get sued, especially if they claimed compliance they did not meet. This provides legal protection when using their products. Open source has none of this, so all risk is on you, and you have to price this in.
All these factors have costs to development, risks to legal. Try integrating some open source into pacemaker code and see how much trouble and cost that is from legal, compared to buying proprietary, certified, components. Or car software (not dash entertainment, but driving critical stuff). Or infrastructure code like power line stuff, safety stuff, etc.
I like open source, and use it for lots of playing around, and where applicable. But it's a nightmare for a significant amount of work outside the HN popular web apps and social media startups. Most software development is not in these spaces.
Basically what they are saying is that "there is more to look than just sticker price. It's not just because the software is open source that TCO is lower."