A software continuum?
Yahoo! News - The very real limitations of open source
For the most part, this article is just another rap on OSS for not being able to attract developers due to lack of incentive (i.e., money.) But what's sort of interesting about it is that he actually argues for a symbiotic relationship between the two, saying that proprietary software tends to provide a supply of developers into the industry, some of whom will then be attracted into OSS development. OSS serves to provide a steady stream of software for proprietary developers to use and adapt (can you say Winsock?). This is interesting and a more balanced view than I'm used to seeing from ZDNet. Worth a read.
2 points, though:
1. I notice that nowhere does he talk about the quality of the software produced by proprietary companies;
2. and I still at times don't get why proprietary companies seem to think that GPL'd code is somehow a violation of their rights. Why should they have a right to take my work and then sell it in a proprietary closed format? I agree that BSD-style licenses are literally the most free, in that you can do anything at all with the code, including roadblocking it via closed releases. But if the fundamental question is property rights, then I have a perfect right to decide what is done with the code I produce, including whether or not you can close its source. You have a recourse: hire a bunch more geeks and write the code from scratch yourself. Or maybe I'm missing something.
And lastly, someone at ZDNet might want to proofread the copy alittle morecarefully, if you knowwhat Imean.