web-archive-it.com » IT » C » CONECTA.IT

Total: 359

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • fosspatents « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    at one of the incriminated files ifndef HCI LIB H define HCI LIB H ifdef cplusplus endif ifdef cplusplus endif static inline int hci test bit int nr void addr return uint32 t addr nr 5 1 nr 31 endif or for something longer ifndef RFCOMM H define RFCOMM H ifdef cplusplus endif include sys socket h define RFCOMM DEFAULT MTU 127 define RFCOMM PSM 3 define RFCOMM CONN TIMEOUT HZ 30 define RFCOMM DISC TIMEOUT HZ 20 define RFCOMM CONNINFO 0x02 define RFCOMM LM 0x03 define RFCOMM LM MASTER 0x0001 define RFCOMM LM AUTH 0x0002 define RFCOMM LM ENCRYPT 0x0004 define RFCOMM LM TRUSTED 0x0008 define RFCOMM LM RELIABLE 0x0010 define RFCOMM LM SECURE 0x0020 define RFCOMM MAX DEV 256 define RFCOMMCREATEDEV IOW R 200 int define RFCOMMRELEASEDEV IOW R 201 int define RFCOMMGETDEVLIST IOR R 210 int define RFCOMMGETDEVINFO IOR R 211 int define RFCOMM REUSE DLC 0 define RFCOMM RELEASE ONHUP 1 define RFCOMM HANGUP NOW 2 define RFCOMM TTY ATTACHED 3 ifdef cplusplus endif struct sockaddr rc sa family t rc family bdaddr t rc bdaddr uint8 t rc channel endif What can we say of that They contain interfaces definitions constants that are imposed by compatibility or efficiency reasons For this reason they are not copyrightable or more properly would be excluded in the standard test for copyright infringement in the abstraction filtration test In fact it would not be possible to guarantee compatibility without such an expression But Florian guesses the authors put a copyright notice on top That means that it must be copyrighted In fact he claims The fact that such notices are added to header files shows that the authors of the programs in question consider the headers copyrightable Also without copyright there s no way to put material under a license such as the GPL Actually it s simply not true I can take something add in the beginning a claim of copyright but that does not imply that I have a real copyright on that Let s imagine that I write a file containing one number and put a c notice on top Do I have a copyright on that number No because the number is not copyrightable itself The same for the headers included before to test for copyright infringement you must first remove all material that is forced for standard compatibility then Scenes a Faire a principle in copyright law that says that certain elements of a creative work are not protected when they are mandated by or customary for an environment then code that cannot be alternatively expressed for performance reasons What is left is potential copyright infringement Now let s apply the test to the code I have pasted What is left Nothing Which is why up to now most of the commentators that are working on the kernel mentioned that this was also just a big large interesting but ultimately useless debate In fact in the BlueZ group the same view was presented include

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/fosspatents/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • gpl laundering « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    look at one of the incriminated files ifndef HCI LIB H define HCI LIB H ifdef cplusplus endif ifdef cplusplus endif static inline int hci test bit int nr void addr return uint32 t addr nr 5 1 nr 31 endif or for something longer ifndef RFCOMM H define RFCOMM H ifdef cplusplus endif include sys socket h define RFCOMM DEFAULT MTU 127 define RFCOMM PSM 3 define RFCOMM CONN TIMEOUT HZ 30 define RFCOMM DISC TIMEOUT HZ 20 define RFCOMM CONNINFO 0x02 define RFCOMM LM 0x03 define RFCOMM LM MASTER 0x0001 define RFCOMM LM AUTH 0x0002 define RFCOMM LM ENCRYPT 0x0004 define RFCOMM LM TRUSTED 0x0008 define RFCOMM LM RELIABLE 0x0010 define RFCOMM LM SECURE 0x0020 define RFCOMM MAX DEV 256 define RFCOMMCREATEDEV IOW R 200 int define RFCOMMRELEASEDEV IOW R 201 int define RFCOMMGETDEVLIST IOR R 210 int define RFCOMMGETDEVINFO IOR R 211 int define RFCOMM REUSE DLC 0 define RFCOMM RELEASE ONHUP 1 define RFCOMM HANGUP NOW 2 define RFCOMM TTY ATTACHED 3 ifdef cplusplus endif struct sockaddr rc sa family t rc family bdaddr t rc bdaddr uint8 t rc channel endif What can we say of that They contain interfaces definitions constants that are imposed by compatibility or efficiency reasons For this reason they are not copyrightable or more properly would be excluded in the standard test for copyright infringement in the abstraction filtration test In fact it would not be possible to guarantee compatibility without such an expression But Florian guesses the authors put a copyright notice on top That means that it must be copyrighted In fact he claims The fact that such notices are added to header files shows that the authors of the programs in question consider the headers copyrightable Also without copyright there s no way to put material under a license such as the GPL Actually it s simply not true I can take something add in the beginning a claim of copyright but that does not imply that I have a real copyright on that Let s imagine that I write a file containing one number and put a c notice on top Do I have a copyright on that number No because the number is not copyrightable itself The same for the headers included before to test for copyright infringement you must first remove all material that is forced for standard compatibility then Scenes a Faire a principle in copyright law that says that certain elements of a creative work are not protected when they are mandated by or customary for an environment then code that cannot be alternatively expressed for performance reasons What is left is potential copyright infringement Now let s apply the test to the code I have pasted What is left Nothing Which is why up to now most of the commentators that are working on the kernel mentioned that this was also just a big large interesting but ultimately useless debate In fact in the BlueZ group the same view was presented

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/gpl-laundering/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • App stores have no place in a web-apps world « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    as things evolve it will become even more difficult In a world of web applications well this problem returns to a very solvable problem of finding something on the web Ask Google Bing Baidu Yandex or more intelligent systems like Wolfram Alpha they all seem to manage it quite well App updates one very useful thing is the ability of an app store to send notifications of new apps and help users in having all the update process done simply and in a single place This is of course quite useful just don t claim that it is a novelty or any YUM or APT user will jump straight at your neck but again is totally irrelevant in a world of web apps the app will just check for a new version in case it uses persistent storage for caching JavaScript and includes or simply go straight to the website of the application publisher This also resolves the friction introduced by the app approval process in current App Stores you submit it and then pray If an update is urgent for example for a security fix you just have to try as much as possible to speed it up it is not up to the developer anyway App backups in a world of apps app backups are a great idea In a world of web apps backups are simply bookmarks with the cacheable parts re downloadable in any moment Since both Chrome and Firefox do have already their own way of syncing bookmarks this is covered as well Payments this is quite an important part and something that current web apps provide in an immature way The Google Chrome web store do something like this but it works only on Chrome and works only with Google there is a need for some more high level payment scheme embedded within web apps As I commented to Matt in his article I still believe that app stores are a useful albeit temporary step towards a more open and transparent infrastructure that we all know and love the web And we will not have to forfeit 30 of all revenues to be on it app stores open source web apps This entry was posted on Monday February 14th 2011 9 37 am and is filed under divertissements You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 4 Trackbacks 2 1 by Martin von Willebrand February 14th 2011 at 10 26 A thought Appstores are also a way to further develop an existing customer contact An iPhone will point to the Apple appstore not others iPhones do not allow others either Pointing to a webstore or collection of web services is perhaps none different An adverse development would be that web would be limited to only allow ecosystem king approved purchases to take place What an outlook customers would not accept this or so it would seem Quote 2

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/app-stores-have-no-place-in-a-web-apps-world/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • app stores « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    pc The reality is that new mobile platform are consolidating a concept the idea of the App store that is an integrated approach to managing and buying applications and the idea of apps for everything even for data that comes off straight from a web site like the recently launched Twitter app for the iPad that is in my own clearly subjective opinion beautiful After all the talks about platform independence portability universality of HTML5 and so on why Apps why closed or half open app stores when theoretically the same thing can be obtained through a web page I have a set of personal opinion on that and I believe that we still need some additional features and infrastructures from browsers and probably operating systems to really match the feature set and quality of apps If or when those missing pieces are delivered to the browser the whole development experience will in my opinion return back to the web as a medium substantially enlarging the potential user base and reducing the importance of a single OS to develop for User Interfaces this is actually one of the easiest things HTML5 CSS3 Canvas and a whole bunch of additions like WebGL are already closing in on the most refined native UI toolkits There is still a margin of course but that gap is closing fast Modern toolkits like Cappuccino one of my favorites used to create the stunning 280slides tool are quite comparable to native UIs and the few remaining features are being added at a frantic pace thanks in part to the healthy competition between Mozilla and WebKit Video actually WebM is in my tests a very good alternative to H264 in terms of quality and in decoding efficiency in my tests WebM playback uses 20 to 30 less CPU than the ffmpeg H264 decoder which is quite a good result As for quality the results of MSU graphics and media lab codec comparison found out that WebM is approximately equivalent to the baseline x264 encoding that is good enough for most applications The substantial drawback of WebM is at the moment the dreadful encoding time 5 to 20 times slower than comparable more mature encoders Substantial effort is needed before WebM can become encoding wise competitive 2D and casual gaming ah the hard point of gaming on the web Up to now gaming has been mainly relegated to the Flash engine and is one of the parts still not replicated well by HTML5 Javascript et al in fact Flash is quite important for the casual gaming experience and some quite stunning games are based on flash and comparable to native games if you want to waste some time look at RoboKill2 as an example However given the fact that no fully compatible open source flash player exist there are still issues with the real portability and platform independence of flash gaming in general despite the excellent improvements in Gnash and LightSpark also it may even be possible to

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/app-stores/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • web apps « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    not going to be useful you need real search capabilities or some sort of manual suggestion like social features I like it or whatever App stores are starting to get it but they are insulated from the web which means that they are unable to harness the vast multifaceted amount of information created by tweeters bloggers journalists and pundits that watch and evaluate almost everything on the web Discovery is now barely possible in a store with 100k apps as things evolve it will become even more difficult In a world of web applications well this problem returns to a very solvable problem of finding something on the web Ask Google Bing Baidu Yandex or more intelligent systems like Wolfram Alpha they all seem to manage it quite well App updates one very useful thing is the ability of an app store to send notifications of new apps and help users in having all the update process done simply and in a single place This is of course quite useful just don t claim that it is a novelty or any YUM or APT user will jump straight at your neck but again is totally irrelevant in a world of web apps the app will just check for a new version in case it uses persistent storage for caching JavaScript and includes or simply go straight to the website of the application publisher This also resolves the friction introduced by the app approval process in current App Stores you submit it and then pray If an update is urgent for example for a security fix you just have to try as much as possible to speed it up it is not up to the developer anyway App backups in a world of apps app backups are a great idea In

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/web-apps/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • OSS is about access to the code « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    imagine it How victorian since downloading them through our 14 4KBaud modems would have required too much time So I ordered the Walnut Creek CD archive of the NASA COSMIC source code archive a collection of public domain codes mostly in Fortran for things like Aeroelastic Analysis for Rotorcraft in Flight or in a Wind Tunnel They are mostly obsolete but since COSMIC was turned into a money making enterprise that requires quite a substantial amount of money I enjoy the idea of providing an access to the original codes The entire list of software descriptions is available here and the codes are browsable at http code google com p nasa cosmic source browse svn trunk Symbian Ah symbian I already wrote about the high and lows of the Symbian OSS project and since Nokia plans to shut down everything and make the source code accessible only through a direct request for an USB key or DVD I though that an internet accessible archive would have been more modern It is a substantial massive archive I had to drop all Mercurial additions to make it fit in the space I had available and still it amounts to 6 1Gb Bzip compressed It is available at http sourceforge net projects symbiandump files I have performed no modifications or changes on the source code and it remains under its original licenses I hope that it may be useful for others or at least become a nice historical artifact open source This entry was posted on Sunday December 12th 2010 6 01 pm and is filed under divertissements You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 1 Trackbacks 4 1 by Atrawog April 6th 2011 at 10

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/oss-is-about-access-to-the-code/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • How to make yourself hated by academics. « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    software the new incentive could deliver let alone whether social welfare would best be served by OS CS or some mix of the two Argh I understand the fact that my papers are not that famous but there are several excellent works that show that OSS is about the economics of production and not politics ideology or gif economies economists showed that real world OS collaborations rely on many different incentives such as education signaling and reputation See No economic incentives People collaborate to show their prowess or improve their education Actually this applies only to half of the OSS population since the other half is paid to work on OSS something that the article totally ignores We model the choice between OS and CS as a two stage game In Stage 1 profit maximizing firms decide between joining an OS collaboration or writing CS code for their own use In Stage 2 they develop a complementary product for example a DVD player or computer game whose performance depends on the code The firms then sell the bundled products in markets that include one or more competitors So they are describing either a R D sharing effort or an Open Core model it is not well explained They are simply ignoring every other possible model something that I have already covered in detail in the past They also ignore the idea that a company may contribute to OSS for their own internal product not for selling it something that is in itself much bigger than the market for shrinkwrapped software remember the 29 mentioned before and that is totally forgotten in the later discussion on welfare OS only realizes the full promise of cost sharing when CS firms are present This is of course false R D sharing is always present every time there is a cooperation across a source base But the article mentions only a simplistic model that assumes a OS company and a proprietary company they insist in calling it Commercial Software which is not There is a large underlying assumptions that OSS is produced now only by companies that create Open Core like products The reality is that this is not true something that was for example found in the last CAOS report from the excellent Matthew Aslett and the exclusion of users developers makes any model that tries to extract welfare totally unreliable Ahh I feel better Now I have another university where I will never be invited open source OSS adoption OSS business models This entry was posted on Friday November 5th 2010 1 07 pm and is filed under divertissements You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 1 Trackbacks 2 1 by Felipe Ortega November 6th 2010 at 16 01 Don t worry Carlo You know you have other Universities where you can take shelter from archaic economists Ok now seriously I ve been discussing a

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/how-to-make-yourself-hated-by-academics/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • OSS adoption « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    iPad or a Galaxy Pad something that I see more and more everywhere In these environments you may need something more powerful than the apps that are available there a full Office like application or a real desktop browser to access a corporate banking application maybe you need a specific client for older systems like the IBM iSeries the old AS 400 or some special client in Java on system that do not have java or flash For this kind of applications we are working on a system that embeds a full HTML5 desktop in a FaceBook application making it accessible from any recent web browser including the iPad This way you can have a full desktop everywhere you go We hope that it can be of interest as soon as it is ready we will release source code and blueprints We have prepared a small demo of how it works right now it is a real screen capture from my own personal EveryDesk Online instance done on a normal ADSL line It should give an idea on how it may work for you open source OSS adoption 2 Comments Strategy Tactics and why companies are free to not contribute Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models on September 16th 2010 Yesterday Julie Bort wrote in the NetworkWorld site an interesting post called Cisco doesn t contribute nearly enough to open source where she contends that despite its proclaims it responsible for a half percent of the contributions to the Linux kernel 0 5 In reality Cisco has been a near non entity as an open source contributor Of course the author is right in its claims the amount of contributed code to the Linux kernel is substantial but very vertical and specific to the needs of Cisco as a Linux adopter Which is a perfectly sensible thing to do The problem of contribution comes up and again in many discussions on open source and business adoption of OSS it is in fact a source of major debate why participation is low and what can be done to improve it It is my opinion that there are some barriers to OSS contribution namely internal IPR policies lack of understanding of how participation can be helpful and not just a gift to competitors and more On the other hand two points should be made to complement this view the first is that some companies contribute in ways that are difficult to measure and the second is that sometimes companies have no economic reasons to do so Let s start with the first point that is a little peeve of me Companies can provide source code some do and that s a beautiful thing However there are many many alternative ways of collaborating Aaron Seigo of KDE fame in one presentation outlined the many activities that are part of the possible KDE contributions Artwork Documentation Human computer interaction Marketing Quality Assurance Software Development Translation In fact I would say that some aspects like Artwork Marketing and Quality Assurance may even be more important than pure coding the problem is measuring such contributions While the technical work underpinning source code analysis is quite well researched among others in our FLOSSMETRICS project there is NO research on how to measure non code contributions And such contributions may be hugely important one of my favorite example is the release from Red Hat of the Liberation fonts a set of fonts with metrics compatible with the most widely used Microsoft fonts like Arial That alone helped substantially in improving the quality and correctness of document editing and visualization on Linux How to measure that Ubuntu has substantially contributed in terms of dissemination in creating a base for many other distributions including our own Everydesk How to assess the value of that The second aspect is more complex and is related to the strategy and tactics that a company uses to fulfill its own goals Let s take into account what a normal company do first of all survive that is revenues reserves expenses Not all companies do have such a goal a company designed to fulfill a task and then end its activities does have the survival goal with a deadline but most do This means that a company performs an internal or external activity if it does provide now or in the future a probable increase in revenues or reserves or decreases expenses Moral or ethical goals can be easily modeled in this schema using a ethical asset that is a measure of how good we are in a specific target environment for example ecological contributions and so on So let s think about our typical company using OSS for a product Let s imagine that the company is doing a tactical adoption that is it does not have a long term strategy that is based on Open Source If the cost of contributing something is lower than the cost of doing everything from scratch then the company will contribute back or at least the probability of that action is higher In absence of a strategy based on open source there is no need to go further For example in the blog post the open sourcing of IOS is mentioned the question is why What economic goal this open sourcing brings If the company decides to adopt a long term strategy based on resource sharing with the idea of receiving substantial contributions from external entities like Linux WebKit Apache and so on then this may make sense but it implies a substantial change in company strategy Such large changes are not easy to do and perform well Sun tried and partly failed and most of the famous examples are only partially adopting an open based strategy IBM Oracle Google To recap 1 we must evaluate and appreciate all kind of contributions not only code 2 We can expect large scale contributions only from companies that bet their strategy on OSS Red Hat is among my favorite examples of that We cannot expect realistically for companies that are using Open Source in a tactical way to contribute back in the same way open source OSS adoption OSS business models 5 Comments OSS 4 0 and licenses not a clear cut choice Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models on August 25th 2010 The always great Matthew Aslett posted today on some of his most recent results on the future of OSS licensing in what he calls Open Source 4 0 characterized by corporate dominated development communities This form of evolution was one of the prediction in my previous posts not for ethical or community reasons but for entirely practical and economic reasons collaborative development is one of the strongest model in all the 11 basic components that we have identified in the FLOSSMETRICS group In fact I wrote in the past something like Many researchers are trying to identify whether there is a more efficient model among all those surveyed what we found is that the most probable future outcome will be a continuous shift across model with a long term consolidation of development consortia like Symbian and Eclipse that provide strong legal infrastructure and development advantages and product specialists that provide vertical offerings for specific markets which I believe matches quite well Matthew s idea about OSS4 0 One area where I am slightly in disagreement with Matthew is related to licensing I am not totally sure about the increased success of non copyleft licenses in this next evolution of the open source market Not because I believe that he is wrong I would never do that he is too nice but because I believe that there are additional aspects that may introduce some differences The choice of an open source license for a project code release is not clear cut and depends on several factors in general when reusing code that comes from external projects license compatibility is the first major driver in license selection Licenses do have an impact on development activity depending on the kind of project and who controls the project evolution Previous studies that shown that restrictive copyleft licenses do have a negative impact on contribution for example in Fershman and Gandal Open source software motivation and restrictive licensing has been refuted by other researchers Stewart Ammeter Maruping Impacts of License Choice and Organizational Sponsorship on User Interest and Development Activity in Open Source Software Projects An interesting result of that research is the following graph What we found is that for non market sponsors and new code there is an higher development activity from outside partners for code that is released under a non copyleft license But this implies that the code is new and not encumbered with previous license obligations like for example the reuse of an existing copyleft licensed project The graph shows the impact on development activity in open source projects depending on license restrictiveness and the kind of sponsor that is the entity that manages a project No sponsor is the kind of project managed by a non coordinated community for example by volunteers market sponsor are projects coordinated by a company while nonmarket sponsor are project managed by a structured organization that is not inherently for profit like a development consortia an example is the Eclipse Foundation The research data identified a clear effect of how the project is coordinated and the kind of license the license restrictiveness has been found to be correlated with decreased contributions for nonmarket sponsors like OSS foundations and is in general related to the higher percentage of infrastructural projects like libraries development tools enabling technologies of such foundations In general the license selection follows from the main licensing and business model constraints When the project is derived from an external FLOSS project then the main constraint is the original license In this case the basic approach is to find a suitable license from those compatible with the original license and select among the possible business models the one that is consistent with the selected exploitation strategy When one of the partners has an Intellectual Property Rights licensing policy that is in conflict with a FLOSS license the project can select a MIT or BSD license if compatible with an eventual upstream release or use an intermediate releaser in the latter case there are no constraints on license selection If a MIT or BSD license is selected some models are of difficult application for example Open Core and Dual Licensing are difficult to implement because the license lack the reciprocity of copyleft When there are no external licensing constraints and external contributions are important license can be more or less freely selected for nonmarket entities a non copylefted license gives a greater probability of contribution So if you are creating a nonmarket entity and you are free to choose choose non copyleft licenses In the other situations it is not so simple and it may even be difficult to avoid previous licensing requirements The point on intermediate releasers require some additional consideration An especially important point of OSS licenses is related to embedded IPR that is the relationship of the code released with software patents that may be held by the releasing authority While the debate on software patents is still not entirely settled with most OSS companies vigorously fighting the process of patenting software based innovations while on the other hand large software companies defending the practice for example SAP most open source licenses explicitly mention the fact that software patents held by the releasing authority are implicitly licensed for use with the code This means that business practices that rely on separate patent licensing may be incompatible with some specific OSS licenses in particular the Apache License and the GPL family of licenses The Eclipse Public License gives patent grants to the original work and to enhanced versions based on the original work but not to code not directly derived from the release while permissive licenses like BSD and MIT give no patent rights at all If for compatibility or derivation a license that gives explicitly IPR rights must be selected and the company or research organization wants to maintain the rights to use IPR in a license incompatible way a possible solution may be the use of an intermediate releaser that is an entity that has no IPR on its own to which the releasing organization gives a copy of the source code for further publication Since the intermediate release has no IPR the license clauses that require patent grants are not activated while the code is published with the required license this approach has been used for example by Microsoft for some of its contributions to the Apache POI project This may become an important point of attention for companies that are interested in releasing source code under an OSS license most software houses are still interested in maintaining their portfolio of patents and are not willing to risk invalidation through accidental licensing of IPR embedded in source code one of the reasons why Microsoft will never sell a Linux based system As I wrote in the beginning there is for a large number of consortia a clear preference for non copyleft licenses but it is not possible to generalize the panorama of OSS is so complex right now that even doing predictions is difficult FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models OSS licenses 4 Comments EveryDesk beta3 released now available as a VirtualBox image Posted by cdaffara in EveryDesk on August 18th 2010 I am quite happy to announce the release of the third beta of our EveryDesk flash based desktop now available in VirtualBox format as well so you can try it out without the need of a USB key EveryDesk is a reinterpretation of the Linux desktop It executes from a 4Gb USB Key and allows the user to run a modern and efficient Linux Desktop on most PCs without the need of changing or removing the native operating system such as Windows Designed to be used in Public Administrations or as an enterprise desktop EveryDesk is a real OS on a USB key not a live CD and as such allows for extensive customization and adaptation to each Public Administration need It is the result of the open sourcing of parts of the Conecta HealthDesk system designed using the result of our past European projects COSPA a large migration experiment for European Public Administrations SPIRIT open source health care OpenTTT OSS technology transfer and CALIBRE open source for industrial environments There are more than 120 changes from the previous edition among them all the medical applications are integrated in the same image so there is no need to have a separate edition for Health Care applications Among the updates Latest edition of the DICOM browser for hospitals and medical applications now supports per user monitor calibration Integrated medical dictionary in OpenOffice org Integrated the After the Deadline OpenOffice grammar checker LikeWise 6 Active directory integration tool A fast efficient and very capable RDP NX and VNC connection manager Remmina based on FreeRDP The latest VirtualBox Several ancillary additions like a large complement of fonts To facilitate the final bug fixing we made the boot process visible that will be reverted to silent boot as soon as the final testing is completed As usual you will find the images at our sourceforge page EveryDesk open source OSS adoption 3 Comments The basis of OSS business models property and efficiency Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models on July 26th 2010 It is now time to write the closing part of our long multi part look at open source business models After all the discussion on how to look at the various parts of a model and how to improve it I will try to summarize a bit on how to look at an OSS business model and what implications can be made from a specific choice for once without mentioning open core The basic idea behind business models is quite simple I have something or can do something the value proposition and it is more economical to pay me to do or get this something instead of doing it yourself sometimes it may even be impossible to find alternatives as in natural or man made monopolies so the idea of doing it myself may not be applicable There are two possible sources for the value a property something that can be transferred and efficiency something that is inherent in what the company do and how they do it With Open Source usually property is non exclusive with the exception of Open Core where part of the code is not open at all Other examples of property are trademarks patents licenses anything that may be transferred to another entity through a contract or legal transaction Efficiency is the ability to perform an action with a lower cost both tangible and intangible and is something that follows the specialization in a work area or appears thanks to a new technology Examples of the first are simply the decrease in time necessary to perform an action when you increase your expertise in it the first time you install a complex system may require lots of effort and this effort is reduced the more you experience the tasks necessary to perform the installation itself Examples of the second may be the introduction of a tool that simplifies the process for example through image cloning and it introduces a huge discontinuity a jump in the graph of efficiency versus time These two aspects are the basis of all the business models that we have analysed in the past it is possible to show that all of them fall in a continuum between properties and efficiency Among the results of our past research project one thing that we found is that property based projects tend to have lower contributions from the outside because it requires a legal

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/oss-adoption/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive