The fundamental belief underpinning Free, Open Source Software (FOSS) is that knowledge should be shared, and should not be subject to or constrained by notions of tangible ownership. Arising from this principle is the ideal that users should have the right to monitor, understand and modify the applications that run on their computers.

Proprietary (or closed-source) software is held up in opposition to this philosophy, maintaining that software/knowledge is a commodity like any other (note our earlier post on licensing), and that creators have a right to protect their intellectual property from competition.

A third camp sits between these extremes: holding FOSS as an ideal state for software development, but recognising the current limitations imposed by the dominance of proprietary software in some sectors. This type of software will use proprietary elements where necessary to meet a specific need, but will favour and advocate for a move towards FOSS. Such software is often described as Open Source Software (OSS), but is not considered “free” in the sense of complete liberty, although proprietary elements may be minor and without financial cost (eg. Adobe Flash Player).

Advocates for these different approaches are many, and the non-techie can easily fall into an unintended lecture or debate, even with more moderate technophiles. While the philosophical questions have some merit (particularly for ideological organisations) the capabilities of the software and ease of use with existing business processes will ultimately determine the  value for an organisation.

While our company has an open-source bias, we advise our clients to use the best tool for the job. Key to that is considering all available options,  and maintaining an awareness of current alternatives.

Using the example of office applications, Open Office is an open-source alternative to the ubiquitous Microsoft Office. The advanced features of these respective applications can be quite different, but for daily word-processing and spreadsheet use, either will suit general needs, and files can be easily shared between them. An effective approach to exploring the options is to use your existing upgrade cycle.

For an organisation using MS Office 2000, an upgrade to Office 2007 involves a completely new user interface, and associated staff training. Open Office 3, in contrast, has a similar interface to MS Office 2000. If the needs of your team can be met by Open Office, with less re-training and support, then the potential gains are substantial. If, on the other hand, your users adapt quickly to the new interface, and find it simplifies the most common tasks for them, then sticking with the proprietary solution may be worthwhile. A cost-benefit analysis can be carried out after a basic pilot, incorporating staff preferences and cost/time/support savings.

The key here is awareness: some software stagnates, while much is continually polished and improved. A formalised openness to ongoing technological possibilities will help to ensure that your organisation has the best tools to carry out your mission.