Some software companies by contrast, have opted to step out of the DRM minefield altogether as it was a perceived irritation to their customers.
Due to the overall negative reaction from many end users with regard to DRM, a number of open source advocates have pointed out that if software companies simply adopted one of the many open source licenses, the need to concern themselves with anti-piracy efforts becomes completely unneeded. But making this kind of business model switch requires more than simply switching licensing models. There are revenue streams to be concerned here.
Open source is easiest when it starts out that way.
It would be naive to believe that moving from a closed source business model to that of the open source variety is a good fit for all software companies. This is simply wishful thinking. It is generally more effective when a software project starts off with open source code from day one.
9 Characteristics of Free Software Users
The Most Hated Company In the PC Industry
The 7 Most Influential GNU/Linux Distributions
Two of the biggest reasons include:
Development teams are already used to sharing ideas and working with open source code.
Switching licensing gears midstream can be a little bumpy on the revenue front without one fantastic open source model in your business plan.
At the same time, a closed source company can indeed make the change with a strong model in place as to how they will keep from losing their customers and, in the process, the bottom line. Unfortunately, this presents a risk that can be difficult to calculate with any expected accuracy.
This brings us back to square one the closed source software will still be pirated and the companies creating this software are not finding a lot of success battling this.
Before going on, however, I think it might be helpful to fully understand why this software is being pirated in the first place. After all, in many cases there are otherwise viable open source alternatives that meet the needs of thousands of users everyday. So what is the hang-up with its adoption in place of proprietary software piracy?
Fundamental software differences.
Products like Open Office, Scribus and GIMP have long since been trumpeted as a piracy alternative to those who prefer to steal a copy of MS Office, MS Publisher and Adobe Photoshop over Peer-2-Peer networks.
While these notable open source applications have certainly provided value to those honest enough to use legal alternatives to piracy, there is a bias against these applications as being "true replacements" over their closed source counterparts. Here are some examples.
Open Office vs. MS Office.
Perhaps the best example of end users opting for a commercial application over the open source alternative has to be Open Office vs. MS Office. Despite there being little difference with regard to functionality, the core reasons I hear for selecting the expensive closed source alternative are as follows:
Familiarity. I use Open Office everyday. Then again, I am used to its layout. For someone migrating, there is a small, but real, learning curve; the user interface is different. Some people would rather avoid this altogether. What is amusing about this is how the user believes Word 2003 has less of a learning curve than Open Office. One has managed to maintain a closer resemblance to older versions of the Microsoft word processor than the other. And best part is, it is not Word 2003.
Java is used with Open Office. Many Windows users feel that Java is simply too bloated and slow to be used for daily use.
Charts do not always convert well with Open Office's Calc application.