Not a programmer, not an administrator, but an accountant, secretary, lawyer, train driver and combine operator.
Not in the future, but in the present, that is, today, that is, now, that is, right now.

The subject for analysis were two documents:
1. The Open Source Definition (Annotated)
2. The Free Software Definition (4 freedoms)

The Open Source Definition (Annotated)

www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

1. Free Redistribution
')
The license must not contain distribution restrictions.
In practice, in order for the software to reach the end user, it is necessary to invest in it.
(RedHat, Firefox).

The benefits here I do not see. I see only store shelves piled with 95% paid software, and 5% open source software, for which they also take money.
Online shopping is also the way.

2. Source Code

The source should be included in the program.
Why does he have a secretary? Why the CEO? Why a combine?

3. Derived Works

The license provides for changes in the code.
The truth is that only a programmer can change the code, and not everyone.
And not immediately.

4. Integrity of the Author's Source Code

Safety of the source. New versions through patches.
Here there is already a share of user care, it is due to the large number of branches and modifications.
But in the paid software there is no such problem at all, it is the sole concern of the developer.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

No discrimination against persons and groups.
I see no difference from commercial software.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The same restriction on the scope.
This limitation is not in commercial software.

7. Distribution of License

Free distribution.
Plus in favor of Open Source - our combine operator can download new software for his combine and share it with friends from a neighboring state farm with impunity.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

Binding to another product.
No difference with commercial software.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

Restriction on the use of other software.
There is no such thing in any commercial license either.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

Binding to the interface technology at the license level.
Also a minus in the field of commercial software, which is usually tied to use on a single processor or computer.

The Free Software Definition

www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The program for any purpose (freedom 0).

No difference with commercial software.

Your freedom to study your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Making the combine operator learn the code of his combine is a big loss for the chairman of the state farm, since there will be no one to harvest.

You can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

Yes, KPO cannot be sent to a neighbor or colleague.

There are no problems with this program. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The ability to sell modified free software seems to me not very important to the secretary.

Conclusion

Free software differs from commercial in that it can also be distributed, that is, it can be sold or transferred.
Accordingly, the only advantage for commercial use is the apparent cheapness of jobs.

The seeming - because the support of free software is often more expensive than commercial.

PS: it turns out you need to buy free software when you clearly know what can be saved on support, for example, linux is much more expensive to support Open Office. Here it is (openoffice) and justifiable to buy.

It remains to pay for additional training of the department of accountants and the army secretaries.