I totally agree with Mr. Sadhra. I sense almost all journals will be open source in near future. It's the easiest way to spread and gulp knowledge; especially the young researchers.

And being Environment fellow I support e-journals than printed one's...

Open source has already taken over all spheres of development in science and innovations. Open source is not just a free software, which is only one of the spin offs. Transparency, reliability, satisfaction of being a contributor or a part of it and above all adding one's own skills for further development is the essence of open source developments.

As said " Live and Let Live", "Use and Add value" should be the motive.

One of the challenges for the use of OpenSource software is the fact that proprietary software often has been introduced to an organization at an earlier stage than OpenSource. I guess biologists will recognize this in the context of island biology. The first introduced species will, for better or worse, define the future development of that island.

Is OS better? It depends. I do believe that without proprietary software there wouldn't exist OpenSource. I do also believe that nothing like OpenSource can widespread a technology worldwide. So I think they are two sides of the same coin.

OS is better in some situations. In company sphere there is better use some proprietary product with strong technical support. But in research and nature conservation is often better use OS product. You save money and you can choose between many products.

Open source is better as far as about common people is concerned but it may not seems good for developers and owners of products.

Regards,

Nitish

Better is a subjective way to ask this question. The recent kerfuffle over the announcement that ESRI is releasing an additional LiDAR compression format (see: http://boundlessgeo.com/2014/01/lidar-format-wars/ or here: http://rapidlasso.com/2013/12/30/new-compressed-las-format-by-esri/) highlights just one issue of trying to define an open-source option as 'better' - folks will be comparing these two options for the remainder of this year probably trying to decide.

When you start using words like accessible, flexible, customizable, democratic, or cross-platform then you start seeing some advantages for certain FOSS GIS packages. I doubt the future will be entirely open-source or open-access. Certain companies have built a demand for a certain type of product across markets (e.g. - SPSS for statistics versus r or MS Office versus Libre Office versus Google Doc). The cost re-training employees within large organizations will likely support continued creation of propriety and closed software.

The primary advantage is that allows access to powerful tools and information cutting across socioeconomic and political boundaries. You don't need access to a large company to gain access to comparable tools. One of the other shifts that we see happening is open-source but within the browser - so not only providing access to free and modifiable tools but offering up the power of cloud-based computing.

My colleague is of the opinion that you try to publish in a decent journal with an impact factor above PLoS One - if you think it can't get in that journal, don't send it to another journal that is below PLoS One, just send it to PLoS. Pretty good advice, actually.

Opensource and Open Access are both valuable and important movements and are "better" than the alternatives, the problems is that for this "rosier future" to happen there are a number of conditional requirements. We need to be upskilling people across the board to be able interact with open software (introducing programming as a compulsory course in Schools would be a good start). Organisations and institutions would need to change the focus and capabilities of their IT departments. One of the great things about Opensource and Open Access for that matter, is that it shifts the focus from competition to collaboration, but as an idea that really needs to take off, given that all other structures within our society still focus on competition (based on the dominant market theory). Overall I'm optimistic and excited about the "open" future ahead.