[watermoose]

While Daniel is correct that open source projects require upkeep and typically require a community of users and developers giving back to the project in order to succeed or at least continue, I think this could be misused as a reason to back those that erroneously conclude that closed source software that is backed by paid work on software is the best method, and this in my many years of experience is incorrect.

Another correction is that "open source" does not mean free as in beer. Source can be open and not free. To ensure that you are using or offering source with a free license, please read: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

[AJ007]

By analogy open source is free as in baby while closed source is like a baby in a maximum security prison. At least one you have the option of fixing when it breaks. The other, you hand someone cash and maybe they fix it.

The other problem, especially as software migrates in to pay-to-use cloud services, is that you have no clue what the future $ cost will be.

Software startups that began with free tiers or really competitively priced tiers have morphed in to things that cost six or seven figures a year. String a few of these together and suddenly you have to figure out how to roll those costs back on to your own customers -- and it may turn out you don't have a viable business model. Further down the road, some of those companies won't exist. Some may be purchased by Oracle/IBM/MS and then reallocate funds from upkeep & dev to nightmare salespeople.