A translation from the Google

"with the advancement commercial and free systems within the Web range resemble each other as far as possible, since the systems in the source text are often delivered. The customer has thus the choice, whom he gives the order for advancement. However there are for the customer with open SOURCE systems no possibility of effect direct affect the development process. Also an investment security is missing as far as possible, since the developer teams see themselves forced by other work often after short time to stop the work on the systems. Commercial systems however finance themselves as far as possible from the license costs. Therefore an attitude of the development is hardly conceivable."


This paragraph appears to me somehow somewhat exaggerated. Typo3 is
a marvelous example, like commercial services approximately around
Open SOURCE content management system (Typo3 is whole okay, has
in addition, various larger weak points) develop. And naturally
one could have as a customer also influence on the development process;
as far as I conversed with Typo3-Implementationspartnern and users,
the Typo3-Community is very open, which concerns feature Requests.

And the topic with investment security... naja, that likes
Perhaps Popel CMSen apply, not however IMHO in systems, those
already achieved a certain market penetration.

We ourselves drive out a Portalframework/Applikationstoolkit,
also CMS functionality thereby is (4 WYSIWYG editors with more automatic
Selection of the editor depending upon Browserfunktionalitaet). We finance
us not as far as possible from the license costs (a full version gibt's
with us already for 5.000 EUR), but mainly from the project developments,
for those the customer gladly pays: he receives its desires for his system
directly and does not have to wait up to the next product update (over then
perhaps to be disappointed, because the manufacturer its desire not
considered). And investment security gibt's with that additionally
available "open SOURCE license" (contained in then still another company license
is) also.

On a lecture on contentmanager.days the 2003 there was an adviser
(I do not know no more from which company, Stellent? or others), that those
Thesis spread that in an overall project the costs of the license only
a very small part constitute, which at least with larger projects
to quite be correct likes.

Summarized I feel the text specified above under the URL mentioned
as a little objective. License-free systems such as Typo3 just show that also
genuine open SOURCE within the CM range a market chance has - straight in anyway already
quite dead content management range - many systems go to that into the market
dynamic applications (in which we are present already for several years ,
because the customers probably recognized that one would like to have more, as only content
To schubsen article around.

About Typo3: straight 2003 were IMHO the year for Typo3 - ever more
commercial implementation partners developed, the straight of
Sandoba criticized disadvantages (support, advancement, investment security)
make up for again.