>Well at that point it's a 2-way street. I'm going to ask for a solution or direction as I'm paying for it.
>However with OSS I'm not.
Open source software is not the opposite of free (as in money) software. Saying this not just for you (maybe you knew it and used the term loosely) but for others too since I often see this wrong use of terms, sometimes even among people who one might think should have known of it.
There can be (and is) for-pay open source, free open source, for-pay proprietary and free proprietary software - all four possibilities. The two dimensions are orthogonal, sort of.
The fact that one or two out of the four kinds may predominate, does not change the above points.
May seem pedantic, I know, but isn't, really, IMO, and I think is worth clearing up this misconception.
Yes, that's a good point. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is open source software, for example, but many companies still pay for RedHat's support services, because the task of doing for yourself what they do for you can be complicated, especially where it comes to understanding, ingesting, and building security patches and things like that.
>However with OSS I'm not.
Open source software is not the opposite of free (as in money) software. Saying this not just for you (maybe you knew it and used the term loosely) but for others too since I often see this wrong use of terms, sometimes even among people who one might think should have known of it.
There can be (and is) for-pay open source, free open source, for-pay proprietary and free proprietary software - all four possibilities. The two dimensions are orthogonal, sort of.
The fact that one or two out of the four kinds may predominate, does not change the above points.
May seem pedantic, I know, but isn't, really, IMO, and I think is worth clearing up this misconception.
Edit: typos.