Why OSS in the Lab?
In 20 years, the amount of OSS/FS available has exploded, to the point that it has become a norm of sorts. FS and its philosophy was founded in a time when source code was scarce and software was something written by one organization to be used by another. Copyleft licenses would entice others to share their work, rather than taking it proprietary. Such concerns are lessened today because there's always another project out there people can use instead, making it hard to profitably make anything proprietary. "Trade secret" software is more valuable today than proprietary software: software developed in one organization that is never released to anyone. In such cases, OSS vs. FS is a meaningless distinction.
> so what's the motivation for the open-source user to go with open source over the same proprietary software?
I'm speaking here from experience in science labs and finance companies. It is rare that one can buy a single piece of software, install it and use it. In 99% of cases, a significant amount of programming is needed to USE any software, and to INTEGRATE it with other software also being used in the firm. The cost of licensing proprietary software is often insignificant, at least within finance companies. But we prefer OSS because it usually has a lower cost of integration. It's easier to get exactly what you want / need, rather than trying to bend a pre-built piece of proprietary software to your needs, or integrating 5 pieces of proprietary software with baling wire. All these points apply to the science world; but also, we need to share our results, and any licensing issues get in the way of it. Not to mention tight science budgets where licensing fees ARE significant.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
