Slashdot Mirror
Experiences with F/OSS as Marketing Ploy?
TempusMagus asks: "My company developed a custom content management system for a large arts organization. Our relationship with them was great and the value of the software was appreciated by everyone. Recently they put in place a large Management/Ticketing/CRM solution for events and ticket sales (essentially a huge transaction heavy Microsoft SQL server database). The CRM system was sold to them as a community based, non-profit software application perfect for other non-profit arts organizations. Here's the interesting part: the 'community' arts management software was developed by a -commercial- company who just so happens to be the -only- vendor they recommend. In fact, when we inquired about the system with the software company in order to integrate it into our CMS all of the sudden the client received tons of calls from the 'approved' vendor to convince them that no one but themselves were capable of integrating with it. Basically, the client has been frightened into using one vendor and is going to throw away a perfectly wonderful (and non-Microsoft based) system. Has anyone any other experiences with companies who use free/open source software or 'community' development to simply lure customers as a front? Do you think we'll see more of this type of behavior as the popularity of F/OSS increases?"
Sounds like *your* software wasn't open-source. Maybe that was the problem all along and why the "Arts organization" dropped you in favor of your open source company.
If they we happy with you, why did they switch?
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Just because software is "open-source" doesn't mean it's good or that its vendor is benevolent. "Open-source" means that you get the source code along with the package; that package may be free, or it may not, and that source code may come encumbered with all sorts of funky licensing, or it may not. It's beneficial to have the source, in case you need to tweak it for your particular application or to accommodate for new hardware, but it's not a cure-all. What sort of open-source license is this company providing? Proprietary? GPL? BSD?
No one should decide the system they use solely on whether it's open-source, or even on whether it's proprietary. You need to consider the whole cost, including hardware and support.
I believe Skyrix (of opengroupware.org fame) is doing the same. Yes, they have freed their code, yes you can try out the web-based version for free, however that's not how the project (OGo) is promoted: as a free alternative to MS Exchange. It simply isn't. In order for Outlook clients to connect with OGo you need a plugin from Skyrix, who sells licenses to use them. A recent post on their mailinglist reiterates this. Not sure what the story is now with the Ximian (nah, Novell) Evo/Exchange connector being GPL'ed.
Now I don't mind if Skyrix tries this scheme to make an extra buck or two from their dead and burried project. What annoys me is the way they promote OGo: "Why by a groupware server as a black-box when you can get an open one for free?". Sure, the server itself is free. But if you want to replace your Exchange server it's gonna cost ya. Read their mission statement: "to integrate with [...] all the leading groupware clients running across all major platforms". Carefully worded to cover up the fact that Skyrix still wants to see some cash.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't complain and instead pick up where Skyrix has stranded OGo. Could also use a rewrite from Obj-C to Python or saner. Anyone up for a new project this summer? :)
This sig is intentionally left blank
having been down a similar road with an arts school myself, I can tell you, at least from my own experience, that this is going to come down to your relationship with the client. In my case, my client trusts me--I've never steered them wrong, and when I can't give them a solution to fit their needs in a cost-effective way, I give them solid recommendations. Consequently, I'm as valuable to them in a consultant's capacity as a vendor capacity, and if another vendor professing to offer an "open" solution tried to convince them I would never be able to integrate into it, they'd politely show them the door, if not laughing them out of it.
my advice? do your homework--check out this "open" solution, and if you can't get access to it from the community, be sure and let your client know just how open it is. also, make sure they realize what they're giving up by switching to one vendor--you know their needs intimately, you know how your CMS works, and they've already invested that money and deserve a return on it. The other guys, OTOH, are obviously out to make a buck without taking into account the legitimate needs of the client.
Sounds like *your* software wasn't open-source. Maybe that was the problem all along and why the "Arts organization" dropped you in favor of your open source company.
Are you serious? Most organizations don't care at all about whether software is open-source. They are looking for software that meets their needs.
Given two packages that perform equally well, the organization is going to make their decision based on support. And "support" doesn't mean some college student in Finland who gets on IRC at night. It means an employee or local consultant who will answer the phone, maintain the systems, and meet with the customer when needed.
The delusions under which so many open-source proponents labor is incredible. It's like a shipping clerk who convinces himself that the rest of the company is really excited about his use of recycled packing peanuts.
In the UK there are two legal issues with such an approach (AFAIK, IANAL, depends on how they phrase matters etc etc):
;-).
(1) Misleading advertising. They would be asked to take down the ad or re-word it in such a way it made it clear there was still $$ required, but only when someone complained about it.
(2) Contractual obligations or misleading sales: a product has to do "what it says on the tin" (hence the huge amount of exclusions on, for instance, MS products). If what you buy does not agree with what you've been told (or the description states) the transaction can be declared null and void as you could claim you've been deceived. There are limits to this, but in general it tries to offset the, er, 'natural' tendency of sales people to embellish matters
Insert
I think the problem here is with the term "community". There are plenty of proprietary software systems that have healthy communities built up around them. The developers work closely with the clients to grow the system into something that really fits the niche. The clients suggest new features and perhaps get issues resolved more quickly than a trouble-ticket system can provide. The developers get instant feedback and ongoing beta testing. All that can happen without ANY of the code seeing the light of day, and it can still easily be called "community development". Heck, the developer might actually even share some source with a client in the community if they think it will help.
But that does NOT make it F/OSS! The F/OSS movement does not have a lock on terms like "community" or "non-profit". In fact, these terms had meaning long before RMS started getting fed up with a proprietary printer driver.
It doesn't sound to me like this CRM system came with a F/OSS license. Your complaint seems to be that the CRM system is being sold by a non-profit corporation that is just a front for a for-profit corp. That is a completely different matter that has nothing to do with F/OSS. I think that non-profits fronting for for-profits is definitely something to complain about. But unfortunately it seems to be (currently) perfectly legal. Debt counseling services seem to be the worst exploiters of this legal situation.
In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
Well, that's who it sounds like to me.
... I came in sometime after this.
A not-for-profit that I am involved with got a grant from the BillyGates foundation. There were strings on the grant calling for spending a bunch of the money at Microsoft, so I'm told. They spent the money, then didn't have the right software, or appropriate IT talent to administer what they bought. Someone from BillyGates recommended techsoup.com as a resource.
It would appear, at least to me that techsoup is a front for Microsoft. They recommend Microsoft solutions for just about everything a not-for-profit could use. Worse, some of the cheap or free solutions are just crippleware that give a hint of what's possible, but require spending thousands for real product: ebase.org is one that comes to mind.
When the restrictions on the BillyGates grant expires, the not-for-profit I support is going all open-source for everything.
Sounds exactly like what Tessitura does with a company called POP.
Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!
American pigs will pay soon!