"As more commercial software vendors are exploring the potential
benefits of open source, the rhetoric is reaching epic proportions.
And with quasi-open-source licenses proliferating, it is becoming
increasingly tougher to determine whether or not software is truly
open source -- and whether or not that matters (beyond purely
religious war reasons) to software consumers and developers."
"Open-source vendors cite the arguments that open-source code is
cleaner and quicker to develop because more developers work on the
code and offer bug fixes. Because the GNU General Public License
stipulates that all changes made to the source code must be given
back to the community, open source thus vastly reduces the
potential for incompatibilities, according to its backers."
"Software vendors who develop code the traditional way, meaning
inside their own walls, using preselected beta testers to help them
catch bugs, make similar claims. The proprietary developers say
they can develop and patch software more quickly and efficiently
because their development and debugging teams are finite ones. And
they attest that neither they nor their customers want to make
available for all to see the custom tweaks and changes they make to
their code, as these tweaks are what allow them to differentiate
their products from their competitors'."
"So, who's telling the truth? At this point, I'd say both camps