No, that is counter intuitive. It may appear more expensive at first, but on the long run it is a lot more cheaper. It avoid vendor lock-in, recurring increase of dev costs and licensing and lots of other plagues of closed proprietary development like blackbox development and justification of hidden complexity as a driving factor on costs. I worked with legacy closed proprietary sw development and lock-in combined with legacy complexity made man-hour costs exorbitant. These are partially solved by open-sourcing, as kicking out a team and putting a new one is easier, but most importantly transparency as a driving factor on quality of development.
No, that is counter intuitive. It may appear more expensive at first, but on the long run it is a lot more cheaper. It avoid vendor lock-in, recurring increase of dev costs and licensing and lots of other plagues of closed proprietary development like blackbox development and justification of hidden complexity as a driving factor on costs. I worked with legacy closed proprietary sw development and lock-in combined with legacy complexity made man-hour costs exorbitant. These are partially solved by open-sourcing, as kicking out a team and putting a new one is easier, but most importantly transparency as a driving factor on quality of development.