The article confirms that. It is comparing a preconfigured desktop, presumably with all hardware drivers and networking in place. This might be true of an office environment, but certainly not in the home.
There are many more computers in offices than in homes. This whole thing is about an office environment. In many office environments the last thing you want are end users messing around with the machines. So much so there is actually a market for third party addons to Windows to stop this.
I wonder how Linux would fair if they asked a user to install a driver for example.
If an office user needs to be asked to install a driver then there is a serious problem.
Or get UT2003 to work.
If someone wants to do this when they are ment to be serving the public then they should be fired.
Once you've learnt to use it, and adjusted to the new environment and new applications, yes.
For a while after making the switch, though, your productivity is going to take a hit, and that's going to put off a lot of people.
This is just as much an issue with Windows though. Because Microsoft likes everyone to "upgrade" fairly frequently.
I have a hard time believing that the tco of a Linux desktop will even be close to the tco of a windows unless the windows boxes are totaly locked down; my experience with XP is its remarkable stable for a MS product until the users start individualizing and getting crap installed from the internet, spyware, the virus/worm of the week ect. Of course this kills the functionality that Ms touts with its FUD. I don't even know where to begin to lock down a winXP box other than simpley setting up an admin account and removing admin privelages from users. Of course that dosn't make any sense unless you get virus protection at $29.95/yr/seat, a firewall program at $29.95/seat, PcAnywhere so the admin isn't running 10 Mi a day to admin the machines ect.
Then hope that an application you need dosn't require "local admin" in order to work.
In Linux installing with permissions set to paranoid is about as locked down as you can get, and most of the extras that windows needs is all ready in there or un-needed.
Also it helps that in Linux regular users cannot mess with things vital to the functioning of the machine.
OBTW 20 min to log in screen; I'd look for a hardware problem first, then run spybot search and destroy because if it started suddenly, likely something broke, or something installed!
Possibly Windows roaming profile "feature" decided to include something it shouldn't...
Ok, and how does the water supply to an apartment fall under "interstate commerce"? Sure, you can come up with contrived logic like "the pipes may have been manufactured outside the state".
More to the point if you read the US Constitution the right way around the 10th ammendment trumps the "Commerce Clause", rather than the other way around. The problem with a written constitution is that it's only much good if it's read and understood by the majority of the population and they are prepared to back it. Otherwise it's just a "nice piece of paper".
The GPL imposes no restrictions on use (you can back it up, use it on as many machines, give CD's to friends, etc.)
The GPL does apply in the last case. Since that is distribution to third parties. Note that the GPL does not care if the "you" is an individual or a corporation.
It would seem very reasonable for the GPL to place conditions on redistribution of modified work, inasmuch as it places no restrictions on redistribution of unmodified work.
Actually there are restrictions on unmodified works. If you supply someone with a binary you must make the source available as described also tell whoever you distribute it to that it is a GPL covered work. You couldn't, for example, lead them to believe that you were supplying them with a proprietary binary.
As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work. If you want to use that work, you must comply.
Actually it's more a case of granting permissions than imposing restrictions. By default someone with a copy of your work cannot make copies and distribute them to third parties. This has been made less clear by the attempts of media and software companies to mutate "copyright" into "useright".
If I choose to release a work under the GPL, that is my choice. I am complying with the law in that I have imposed restrictions on the use of my work (or lack of restrictions).
Imposing restrictions in a copyright distribution licence would be rather redundent. Anyone distributing copies of your work needs your explicit permission to do so in the first place.
We had some of the FreeSwan people at our Linux users group a while ago. According to them, the US can say "No American, regardless of where they are in the world, can export Linux to Syria"
Since most of the worlds population are not Americans this isn't really a big problem for Syria. Wonder what countries are on Syria's export restricted list. Possibly "No Syrian, regardless of where they are in the world, can export Linux to the US."
This is a very odd thing to assert, and I suspect that the same people who believe this believe that the GPL isn't a contract. No matter what, GPL'd software has restrictions -- the restrictions listed in the GPL.
Hence the need to understand the mindset of a madman. N.B. The restrictions and obligations in the GPL always exist. To some people they are of such little consequence that they can almost ignore them. To others (notably those in the proprietary software business) exactly the same restrictions and obligations come across as major "show stoppers".
The problem of course is that people are starting to buy free software because it's (a) usually cheaper and (b) they do not lock themselves in with any single vendor.
There is also (c) they are more likely to end up with something which suits them.
RMS has been very successful in promoting his obsessive viewpoints on Exactly How Free Software Should Be
Just as William H Gates the Third was very sucessful in the mid 1970's at promoting his (no less obsessive) view on how software "should be".
and enough people have been willing to go along with it that there's not a significant body of work covered by the GPL.
This couldn't be because they are in general agreement with his position...
How many of the authors would have been just as satisfied contributing to something with an Artistic License or a Not My Fault license is debatable;
Do these forbid the incorporation of the code into proprietary code bases? Maybe quite a few of these these people would not be happy with proprietary software companies making money off their work.
once you attach it to GPLed stuff, it tends to get GPLed unless you're very careful about how you build and use interfaces,
If you produce software from scratch you are the copyright holder and can attach any kind of licence you like to it. If you are distributing someone else's software then you need the permission of the copyright holder. By default you cannot distribute the software either as is or in a modified form. You can get permission either through a distribution licence attached to the software (which is what the GPL is) or by negotiating with the copyright holder. The advantage of the former is that you don't need to contact the copyright holder, since the conditions under which you can distribute are explicitally stated.
and that may not be the best _technical_ choice or may be more work than people want to bother with.
Writing software which duplicates the function of software which already exists is "extra work" as is tracking down and negotiating with copyright holders.
SCO and Microsoft aren't the first people to dislike the GNU Public Virus.
The GPL is not "viral". The way SCO is trying to claim ownership of IBM's software is an attempt at viral licencing. The way in which Microsoft claims ownership of any emails passing through it's "Hotmail" service is viral.
It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work, and there are alternative viewpoints even among people who *do* like free software.
The point of the GPL is to allow code to be distributed widely whilst retaining copyright. Proprietary software companies do not like the GPL because they cannot pirate the software and unless their proprietary software is substantially more functional than free software no-one in their right mind would buy their offerings.
People that support and promote FLOSS very often loose sifgt of the most important characteristic of this kind of software: transparency, accountability (specially when software is GPLed) and avoiding to be locked in by software providers.
The first two are (or at least should be) relevent when the task in question is government. Or at least any government which claims democratic credentials.
Or after some years come a propietary company and changes the licensing schemes (because that is what is in their interest, not mine) and I am forced to pay extra money that was not in my budget.
You may not even pay all the extra money to the software company. Quite a bit could be spent simply checking what you'd need to buy under the new scheme.
Or waht about the propietary software company decides that my version of X program is not going to be supported enymore and all my main processes are using that software perfectly fine and I would prefer to rather no upgrade or migrate to the latest and shiniest?
Even if the "latest and shiniest" works perfectly it won't deploy itself. Most likely several tweaks and workarounds which were used with the old system will no longer work (worst case senario being quiet data corruption). As the whole thing is based on proprietary software your support don't have a clue why...
MS will emphasize the TCO when they can put forwad cases in which it would appear MS stuff is cheaper. Well, at this stage of the game TCO is a red herring, since there are many other considerations far more important
Most likely the T won't actually mean "Total". e.g. excluding consideration of licence audits, costs of changing licence systems, forced upgrades (including consequential costs of doing the upgrade.), etc.
Competition would be if the playing field was dominated by many small companies adjusting their prices to find a common, sustainable price.
Including some companies entering that market and some companies leaving that market. In the case of offering a contract to government they might make a secret bid...
If you are an actor with oh, say 90% of the market and lower your prices drastically when a competitor enters, it's called dumping.
There is also the "Microsoft Tax" effect. Since it is very difficult to get hardware without it being bundled with Microsoft software.
Copyright law only says that you, as a creator of your work, have exclusive control on whom else you wish to allow to distribute that work. By default, nobody other than yourself is allowed to distribute a work that is copyrighted by you. You must grant permission first.
The GPL is not a license for usage, it is a copyright license that outlines the terms necessary to obtain permission to redistribute from the copyright holders.
There isn't anything magical about the GPL, it's simply a standard piece of text. But one which many copyright holders feel meets their requirments. The point of a redistribution licence is that it makes it obvious what the conditions are to be granted permission. (There may be several alternatives offered, e.g. "follow the GPL or pay according to the enclosed schedule.) About the only way any conditions could be voided is if they involve something illegal. Applying such a licence is also to the advantage of the copyright holder, since they will only be bothered if someone wants to redistribute without complying with redistribution licence. The option to negotiate with a copyright holder always exists. But if they have provided a redistribution licence they might well be reluctant to do so.
On that note, am I the only one that thinks it was a mistake for Linus not to require all contributions to the linux kernel to be signed over to him or to a "Linux software foundation" of some sort?
What would be worst for SCO, facing one copyright infringement suit or facing hundreds to thousands?
I can just imagine SCO demanding a list of all copyright holders on the Linux kernel, and wanting to get a deposition from EACH ONE. It would take FOREVER!!!!!
SCO have a simple choice, either they accept the GPL or they negotiate with every copyright holder who's work they want to distribute. The possibility of it taking "forever" is SCO's problem.
It doesn't matter how the EFF handles GPL violations since they are not the licensor. If they were, then unequal application of the GPL would only invalidate (if it did invalidate) the licence of the GPL software owned by the EFF.
A GPL violation is actually a copyright violation. A failure to persue copyright violations does not weaken copyright, unlike trademarks. With no type of "intellectual property" does a failure of party A to persue a violater affect party B's ability to protect their IP.
The GPL is a licence (like the Microsoft Shared Source Licence, or even EULA)
It is explicitally not an EULA these are something rather different who's legal status may indeed be suspect.
If you read the posts higher-up, you will discover that someone at LG, in writing the firmware for their normal CD-ROMs (not their CD-RWs), redefined the code that normally means "write flush cache" (which I guess is used by an experimental kernel patch to detect if you have a CD writer capable of packet writing, if I read everything correctly) to mean "firmware upload".
Redefining parts of a command set is always a bad idea. The simplist work around would be for the driver to first check for the faulty drive. Which would be rather easier if LG would simply release a list. Indeed LG are the people most able to submit a kernel patch.
Naturally, the kernel driver expects to get an error returned back to it, indicating that we don't have a CD-RW drive. Instead, the LG CD-ROMs initiate a firmware wipe and await the upload of new code.
Wiping the old firmware before getting the new firmware is not the smartest of ideas in the first place.
So how do you propose putting firmware updates into CD-ROM drives, DVD drives, modems, etc.? Just about any peripheral which has flashable firmware can be rendered unusable by software.
First if there is a documented section of the command set for changing firmware you use that and only that to change it. Second you make the procedure to actually alter the stored firmware complex, so that it is hard to do accidentally, and such that if the procedure is not completed nothing is changed. Maybe you don't need to make things quite as complex as for changing the firmware of spacecraft though, since you can at least get physical access to the thing.
Even with escrow there are plenty of ways for things to go badly wrong but still not force the escrow agent to hand over the code in a usable form (or at all).
The best the escrow agent can do is hand over whatever they are given. The GIGO principle applies here.
You're still assuming a closed-source business model -- and so maybe it shouldn't be too surprising that it doesn't work as well with open source.
Actually the business model is more "software as widget manufacturing".
I think the mentality has to change, the code itself is probably not very valuable
Especially given that it can be trivially copied
modifying and making it work for indivdiual entities (so called services I guess) is where the employment and real value-add is at.
The term that you are probably looking for is "tertiary industry".
I think the two forms of software development probably call for different forms of business, and I think the open source business plan (I always imagined programmers working in-house creating custom fixes or versions of software,
Plenty do this now, even with the handicaps involved with attempting this with proprietary software.
So you either pay the $2000, or you use the nearest open-source equivalent, which would probably be graphical abacus software written in ncurses or something,
Is that 2,000 USD for an unrestricted site licence? Or would any user of the software be paying 10-50 times that in practice... If the latter then paying someone/some company to provide an OSS equivalent could be the cheaper option.
Slashdot Mirror
The article confirms that. It is comparing a preconfigured desktop, presumably with all hardware drivers and networking in place. This might be true of an office environment, but certainly not in the home.
There are many more computers in offices than in homes. This whole thing is about an office environment. In many office environments the last thing you want are end users messing around with the machines. So much so there is actually a market for third party addons to Windows to stop this.
I wonder how Linux would fair if they asked a user to install a driver for example.
If an office user needs to be asked to install a driver then there is a serious problem.
Or get UT2003 to work.
If someone wants to do this when they are ment to be serving the public then they should be fired.
Once you've learnt to use it, and adjusted to the new environment and new applications, yes.
For a while after making the switch, though, your productivity is going to take a hit, and that's going to put off a lot of people.
This is just as much an issue with Windows though. Because Microsoft likes everyone to "upgrade" fairly frequently.
I have a hard time believing that the tco of a Linux desktop will even be close to the tco of a windows unless the windows boxes are totaly locked down; my experience with XP is its remarkable stable for a MS product until the users start individualizing and getting crap installed from the internet, spyware, the virus/worm of the week ect. Of course this kills the functionality that Ms touts with its FUD. I don't even know where to begin to lock down a winXP box other than simpley setting up an admin account and removing admin privelages from users. Of course that dosn't make any sense unless you get virus protection at $29.95/yr/seat, a firewall program at $29.95/seat, PcAnywhere so the admin isn't running 10 Mi a day to admin the machines ect.
Then hope that an application you need dosn't require "local admin" in order to work.
In Linux installing with permissions set to paranoid is about as locked down as you can get, and most of the extras that windows needs is all ready in there or un-needed.
Also it helps that in Linux regular users cannot mess with things vital to the functioning of the machine.
OBTW 20 min to log in screen; I'd look for a hardware problem first, then run spybot search and destroy because if it started suddenly, likely something broke, or something installed!
Possibly Windows roaming profile "feature" decided to include something it shouldn't...
Ok, and how does the water supply to an apartment fall under "interstate commerce"? Sure, you can come up with contrived logic like "the pipes may have been manufactured outside the state".
More to the point if you read the US Constitution the right way around the 10th ammendment trumps the "Commerce Clause", rather than the other way around.
The problem with a written constitution is that it's only much good if it's read and understood by the majority of the population and they are prepared to back it. Otherwise it's just a "nice piece of paper".
The GPL imposes no restrictions on use (you can back it up, use it on as many machines, give CD's to friends, etc.)
The GPL does apply in the last case. Since that is distribution to third parties. Note that the GPL does not care if the "you" is an individual or a corporation.
It would seem very reasonable for the GPL to place conditions on redistribution of modified work, inasmuch as it places no restrictions on redistribution of unmodified work.
Actually there are restrictions on unmodified works. If you supply someone with a binary you must make the source available as described also tell whoever you distribute it to that it is a GPL covered work. You couldn't, for example, lead them to believe that you were supplying them with a proprietary binary.
As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work. If you want to use that work, you must comply.
Actually it's more a case of granting permissions than imposing restrictions. By default someone with a copy of your work cannot make copies and distribute them to third parties. This has been made less clear by the attempts of media and software companies to mutate "copyright" into "useright".
If I choose to release a work under the GPL, that is my choice. I am complying with the law in that I have imposed restrictions on the use of my work (or lack of restrictions).
Imposing restrictions in a copyright distribution licence would be rather redundent. Anyone distributing copies of your work needs your explicit permission to do so in the first place.
We had some of the FreeSwan people at our Linux users group a while ago. According to them, the US can say "No American, regardless of where they are in the world, can export Linux to Syria"
Since most of the worlds population are not Americans this isn't really a big problem for Syria. Wonder what countries are on Syria's export restricted list. Possibly "No Syrian, regardless of where they are in the world, can export Linux to the US."
the vast majority of ALL software is rubbish. GPL or not.
Including lots of software which people want money for, not just shareware either.
Much GPL software is mistakenly assumed to be bad simply because it is obtainable before it is even close to being finished.
If people ignore that it's marked as not finished that's their look out.
It's ironic that its supposed to create extremly good code, while removing all competiton. It's like socialism that works..
Actually the GPL allows plenty of copetition. In terms of packaging software to meet a specific need, modifying existing software, etc.
This is a very odd thing to assert, and I suspect that the same people who believe this believe that the GPL isn't a contract. No matter what, GPL'd software has restrictions -- the restrictions listed in the GPL.
Hence the need to understand the mindset of a madman.
N.B. The restrictions and obligations in the GPL always exist. To some people they are of such little consequence that they can almost ignore them. To others (notably those in the proprietary software business) exactly the same restrictions and obligations come across as major "show stoppers".
The problem of course is that people are starting to buy free software because it's (a) usually cheaper and (b) they do not lock themselves in with any single vendor.
There is also (c) they are more likely to end up with something which suits them.
RMS has been very successful in promoting his obsessive viewpoints on Exactly How Free Software Should Be
Just as William H Gates the Third was very sucessful in the mid 1970's at promoting his (no less obsessive) view on how software "should be".
and enough people have been willing to go along with it that there's not a significant body of work covered by the GPL.
This couldn't be because they are in general agreement with his position...
How many of the authors would have been just as satisfied contributing to something with an Artistic License or a Not My Fault license is debatable;
Do these forbid the incorporation of the code into proprietary code bases? Maybe quite a few of these these people would not be happy with proprietary software companies making money off their work.
once you attach it to GPLed stuff, it tends to get GPLed unless you're very careful about how you build and use interfaces,
If you produce software from scratch you are the copyright holder and can attach any kind of licence you like to it. If you are distributing someone else's software then you need the permission of the copyright holder. By default you cannot distribute the software either as is or in a modified form. You can get permission either through a distribution licence attached to the software (which is what the GPL is) or by negotiating with the copyright holder. The advantage of the former is that you don't need to contact the copyright holder, since the conditions under which you can distribute are explicitally stated.
and that may not be the best _technical_ choice or may be more work than people want to bother with.
Writing software which duplicates the function of software which already exists is "extra work" as is tracking down and negotiating with copyright holders.
SCO and Microsoft aren't the first people to dislike the GNU Public Virus.
The GPL is not "viral". The way SCO is trying to claim ownership of IBM's software is an attempt at viral licencing. The way in which Microsoft claims ownership of any emails passing through it's "Hotmail" service is viral.
It's a licensing approach that's very aggressively designed to promote certain ideas about how Free Software should work, and there are alternative viewpoints even among people who *do* like free software.
The point of the GPL is to allow code to be distributed widely whilst retaining copyright. Proprietary software companies do not like the GPL because they cannot pirate the software and unless their proprietary software is substantially more functional than free software no-one in their right mind would buy their offerings.
People that support and promote FLOSS very often loose sifgt of the most important characteristic of this kind of software: transparency, accountability (specially when software is GPLed) and avoiding to be locked in by software providers.
The first two are (or at least should be) relevent when the task in question is government. Or at least any government which claims democratic credentials.
Or after some years come a propietary company and changes the licensing schemes (because that is what is in their interest, not mine) and I am forced to pay extra money that was not in my budget.
You may not even pay all the extra money to the software company. Quite a bit could be spent simply checking what you'd need to buy under the new scheme.
Or waht about the propietary software company decides that my version of X program is not going to be supported enymore and all my main processes are using that software perfectly fine and I would prefer to rather no upgrade or migrate to the latest and shiniest?
Even if the "latest and shiniest" works perfectly it won't deploy itself. Most likely several tweaks and workarounds which were used with the old system will no longer work (worst case senario being quiet data corruption). As the whole thing is based on proprietary software your support don't have a clue why...
MS will emphasize the TCO when they can put forwad cases in which it would appear MS stuff is cheaper. Well, at this stage of the game TCO is a red herring, since there are many other considerations far more important
Most likely the T won't actually mean "Total". e.g. excluding consideration of licence audits, costs of changing licence systems, forced upgrades (including consequential costs of doing the upgrade.), etc.
Competition would be if the playing field was dominated by many small companies adjusting their prices to find a common, sustainable price.
Including some companies entering that market and some companies leaving that market.
In the case of offering a contract to government they might make a secret bid...
If you are an actor with oh, say 90% of the market and lower your prices drastically when a competitor enters, it's called dumping.
There is also the "Microsoft Tax" effect. Since it is very difficult to get hardware without it being bundled with Microsoft software.
You do not get sick when the SR-71 lands. The skin of the aircraft is already cooled by the time it lands, so you can touch it.
One unusual thing about the SR-71 is that the fuel tanks leak when it is cool. Maybe high concentrations of fuel vapour can make people ill.
Copyright law only says that you, as a creator of your work, have exclusive control on whom else you wish to allow to distribute that work. By default, nobody other than yourself is allowed to distribute a work that is copyrighted by you. You must grant permission first.
The GPL is not a license for usage, it is a copyright license that outlines the terms necessary to obtain permission to redistribute from the copyright holders.
There isn't anything magical about the GPL, it's simply a standard piece of text. But one which many copyright holders feel meets their requirments.
The point of a redistribution licence is that it makes it obvious what the conditions are to be granted permission. (There may be several alternatives offered, e.g. "follow the GPL or pay according to the enclosed schedule.)
About the only way any conditions could be voided is if they involve something illegal. Applying such a licence is also to the advantage of the copyright holder, since they will only be bothered if someone wants to redistribute without complying with redistribution licence.
The option to negotiate with a copyright holder always exists. But if they have provided a redistribution licence they might well be reluctant to do so.
On that note, am I the only one that thinks it was a mistake for Linus not to require all contributions to the linux kernel to be signed over to him or to a "Linux software foundation" of some sort?
What would be worst for SCO, facing one copyright infringement suit or facing hundreds to thousands?
I can just imagine SCO demanding a list of all copyright holders on the Linux kernel, and wanting to get a deposition from EACH ONE. It would take FOREVER!!!!!
SCO have a simple choice, either they accept the GPL or they negotiate with every copyright holder who's work they want to distribute. The possibility of it taking "forever" is SCO's problem.
It doesn't matter how the EFF handles GPL violations since they are not the licensor. If they were, then unequal application of the GPL would only invalidate (if it did invalidate) the licence of the GPL software owned by the EFF.
A GPL violation is actually a copyright violation. A failure to persue copyright violations does not weaken copyright, unlike trademarks. With no type of "intellectual property" does a failure of party A to persue a violater affect party B's ability to protect their IP.
The GPL is a licence (like the Microsoft Shared Source Licence, or even EULA)
It is explicitally not an EULA these are something rather different who's legal status may indeed be suspect.
Any combination can be sent by accident, so no matter what they pick, their chance of screwage remains the same.
It would be kind of hard to generate "sequence A, checksum, sequence B, checksum, sequence C, checksum" at random.
And if they keep it secret, folks working at the hardware level can't exercise extra caution
People writing drivers are more likely to use documentation than sending random bits of data to a device to see what it does (if anything).
If you read the posts higher-up, you will discover that someone at LG, in writing the firmware for their normal CD-ROMs (not their CD-RWs), redefined the code that normally means "write flush cache" (which I guess is used by an experimental kernel patch to detect if you have a CD writer capable of packet writing, if I read everything correctly) to mean "firmware upload".
Redefining parts of a command set is always a bad idea.
The simplist work around would be for the driver to first check for the faulty drive. Which would be rather easier if LG would simply release a list. Indeed LG are the people most able to submit a kernel patch.
Naturally, the kernel driver expects to get an error returned back to it, indicating that we don't have a CD-RW drive. Instead, the LG CD-ROMs initiate a firmware wipe and await the upload of new code.
Wiping the old firmware before getting the new firmware is not the smartest of ideas in the first place.
So how do you propose putting firmware updates into CD-ROM drives, DVD drives, modems, etc.? Just about any peripheral which has flashable firmware can be rendered unusable by software.
First if there is a documented section of the command set for changing firmware you use that and only that to change it. Second you make the procedure to actually alter the stored firmware complex, so that it is hard to do accidentally, and such that if the procedure is not completed nothing is changed. Maybe you don't need to make things quite as complex as for changing the firmware of spacecraft though, since you can at least get physical access to the thing.
Even with escrow there are plenty of ways for things to go badly wrong but still not force the escrow agent to hand over the code in a usable form (or at all).
The best the escrow agent can do is hand over whatever they are given. The GIGO principle applies here.
You're still assuming a closed-source business model -- and so maybe it shouldn't be too surprising that it doesn't work as well with open source.
Actually the business model is more "software as widget manufacturing".
I think the mentality has to change, the code itself is probably not very valuable
Especially given that it can be trivially copied
modifying and making it work for indivdiual entities (so called services I guess) is where the employment and real value-add is at.
The term that you are probably looking for is "tertiary industry".
I think the two forms of software development probably call for different forms of business, and I think the open source business plan (I always imagined programmers working in-house creating custom fixes or versions of software,
Plenty do this now, even with the handicaps involved with attempting this with proprietary software.
So you either pay the $2000, or you use the nearest open-source equivalent, which would probably be graphical abacus software written in ncurses or something,
Is that 2,000 USD for an unrestricted site licence? Or would any user of the software be paying 10-50 times that in practice... If the latter then paying someone/some company to provide an OSS equivalent could be the cheaper option.