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".
  • open source « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    was barely functional and usable only to perform some testing or evaluation but not for using in production The new open core is more a combination of services and some marginal extension that are usually targeted for integration with proprietary components or to simplify deployment and management In this sense the real part of open core that is the exclusive code is becoming less and less important three years ago we estimated that from a functional point of view the old open core model separated functions at approximately 70 the OS edition had from 60 to 70 of the functions of the proprietary product while now this split is around 90 or even higher but is complemented with assurance services like support documentation knowledge bases the certification of code and so on Just to show some examples DimDim We have synchronized this release to match the latest hosted version and released the complete source code tree Bear in mind that features which require the Dimdim meeting portal scheduling recording to note are not available in open source There is also no limit to the number of attendees and meetings that can be supported using the Open Source Community Edition If you compare the editions it is possible to see that the difference lies apart from the scheduling and recording in support and the availability of professional services like custom integration with external authentication sources Alfresco The difference in source code lies in the clustering and high availability support and the JMX management extensions all of which may be replicated with some effort by using pure OSS tools Those differences are clearly relevant for the largest and most complex installations from the point of view of services the editions are differentiated through availability of support certification both of binary releases and of external stacks like database and app server bug fixing documentation availability of upgrades and training options Cynapse an extremely interesting group collaboration system The code difference lies in LDAP integration and clustering the service difference lies in support availability of certified binaries knowledgebase access and official documentation OpenClinica a platform for the creation of Electronic Data Capture systems used in pharmaceutical trials and in data acquisition in health care from the web site OpenClinica Enterprise is fully supported version of the OpenClinica platform with a tailored set of Research Critical Services such as installation training validation upgrades help desk support customization systems integration and more During the compilation of the second FLOSSMETRICS database I found that the majority of open core models were actually moving from the original definition to an hybrid monetization model that brings together several separate models particularly the platform provider product specialist and the proper open core one to better address the needs of customers The fact that the actual percentage of code that is not available under an OSS license is shrinking is in my view a positive fact because it allows for the real OSS project to stand on its own and eventually be reused by others and because it shows that the proprietary code part is less and less important in an ecosystem where services are the real key to add value to a customer FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models 4 Comments Conference announcement SITIS09 track Open Source Software Development and Solution Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption OSS business models blog on July 3rd 2009 I am pleased to forward the conference announcement I believe that my readers may be interested in the OSSDS track on open source development and solutions The 5th International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems SITIS 09 November 29 December 3 2009 Farah Kenzi Hotel Marrakech Morocco http www u bourgogne fr SITIS In cooperation with ACM SigApp fr IFIP TC 2 WG 2 13 IEEE pending The SITIS conference is dedicated to research on the technologies used to represent share and process information in various forms ranging multimedia data to traditional structured data and semi structured data found in the web SITIS spans two inter related research domains that increasingly play a key role in connecting systems across network centric environments to allow distributed computing and information sharing SITIS 2009 aims to provide a forum for high quality presentations on research activities centered on the following tracks The focus of the track Information Management Retrieval Technologies IMRT is on the emerging modeling representation and retrieval techniques that take into account the amount type and diversity of information accessible in distributed computing environment The topics include data semantics and ontologies spatial information systems Multimedia databases Information retrieval and search engine and applications The track Web Based Information Technologies Distributed Systems WITDS is devoted to emerging and novel concepts architectures and methodologies for creating an interconnected world in which information can be exchanged easily tasks can be processed collaboratively and communities of users with similarly interests can be formed while addressing security threats that are present more than ever before The topics include information system interoperability emergent semantics agent based systems distributed and parallel information management grid P2P web centric systems web security and integrity issues The track Open Source Software Development and Solution OSSDS focuses on new software engineering method in distributed and large scaled environments strategies for promoting adopting and using Open Source Solutions and case studies or success stories in specific domains The topics include software engineering methods users and communities interactions software development platforms open Source developments and project management applications domain case studies In addition to the above tracks SITIS 2009 includes workshops the final list of workshop will be provided later Submission and publication The conference will include keynote addresses tutorials and regular and workshop sessions SITIS 2009 invites submission of high quality and original papers on the topics of the major tracks described below All submitted papers will be peer reviewed by at least two reviewers for technical merit originality significance and relevance to track topics Papers must be up to 8 pages and follow IEEE double columns publication format Accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings and published by IEEE Computer Society and referenced in IEEE explore and major indexes Submission site http www easychair org conferences conf sitis09 Important dates Paper Submission July 15th 2009 Acceptance Reject notification August 15th 2009 Camera ready Author registration September 1st 2009 Local organizing committee Cadi Ayyad University Morocco Aziz Elfaazzikii Chair El Hassan Abdelwahed Jahir Zahi Mohamed El Adnani Mohamed Sadgal Souad Chraibi Said El Bachari Track Open Source Software Development and Solutions OSSDS IFIP TC 2 WG 2 13 The focus of this track is on new software engineering method for Free Libre and Open Source Software FLOSS development in distributed and large scaled environments strategies for promoting adopting using FLOSS solutions and case studies or success stories in specific domains Software Engineering methods users and communities interactions software development platforms Architecture and patterns for FLOSS development Testing and reliability of FLOSS Software engineering methods in distributed collaborative environments Licencing and other legal issues Documentation of FLOSS projects CASE tool to support FLOSS development Agile principles and FLOSS development Mining in FLOSS projects Applications domain case studies success stories Geospatial software services and applications Bioinformatics FLOSS for e government and e administration FLOSS in public sector e g education healthcare FLOSS solutions for data intensive applications FLOSS and SOA middleware applications servers FLOSS for critical applications FLOSS in Grid and P2P environments Tools and infrastructures for FLOSS development Scientific computing Simulation tools Security tools Development and project management Ecology of FLOSS development FLOSS stability maintainability and scalability FLOSS evaluation mining FLOSS data FLOSS and innovation Experiments reports field studies and empirical analysis FLOSS for teaching software engineering Revenue models Security concerns in using FLOSS Users involvement in design and development of FLOSS Building sustainable communities Track Chairs Thierry Badard University of Laval Canada Eric Leclercq University of Bourgogne France Program Committee Abdallah Al Zain Heriot Watt University UK Claudio Ardagna Universita degli Studi di Milano Italy Carlo Daffara Conecta Italy Ernesto Damiani University of Milan Italy Mehmet Gokturk Gebze Institute of Technology Turkey Scott A Hissam Carnegie Mellon University USA Frédéric Hubert University of Laval Canada Puneet Kishor University of Wisconsin Madison and Open Source Geospatial Foundation USA Frank Van Der Linden Philips Netherlands Gregory Lopez Thales group France Sandro Morasca Universita degli Studi dell Insubria Italy Pascal Molli University of Nancy France Eric Piel University of Delft The Netherlands Eric Ramat University of Littoral France Sylvain Rampacek University of Bourgogne France Marinette Savonnet University of Bourgogne France Charles Schweik University of Massachussets Amherst USA Alberto Sillitti University of Bolzano Italy Megan Squire Elon University USA Marie Noelle Terrasse University of Bourgogne France Christelle Vangenot EPFL Switzerland Add new tag FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models 3 Comments Just finished the final edition of the SME guide to open source Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data on July 2nd 2009 It has been an absolutely enjoyable activity to work in the context of the FLOSSMETRICS project with the overall idea of helping SMEs to adopt and migrate to open source and free software My proposed approach was to create an accessible and replicable guide designed to help both those interested in exploring what open source is and in helping companies in the process of offering services and products based on OSS now two years later I found references to the previous editions of the guide in websites across the world and was delighted in discovering that some OSS companies are using it as marketing material to help prospective customers So after a few more months of work I am really happy to present the fourth and final edition of the guide PDF link that will I hope improve in our previous efforts For those that already viewed the previous editions chapter 6 was entirely rewritten along with a new chapter 7 and a newly introduced evaluation method The catalogue has been expanded and corrected in several places also thanks to the individual companies and groups responsible for the packages themselves and the overall appearance of the PDF version should be much improved compared to the automatically generated version I will continue to work on it even after the end of the project and as before I welcome any contribution and suggestion FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models OSS migration 8 Comments A new way to select among FLOSS packages the FLOSSMETRICS approach Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption OSS business models on July 1st 2009 One of the hidden costs of the adoption or migration to FLOSS is the selection process deciding which packages to use and estimating the risk of use when a project is not mature or considered enterprise grade In the COSPA migration project we found that in many instances the selection and evaluation process was responsible for 20 of the total cost of migration including both the actual process and the cost incurred in selecting the wrong package and then re performing the assessment with a new one The problem of software selection is that there is a full spectrum of choices and a different attitude to risk a research experiment may be more interested in features while a mission critical adoption may be more interested in the long term survivability of the software they are adopting For this reason many different estimating methods were researched in the past including EU based research projects the QSOS method SQO OSS QUALOSS and business oriented systems like OpenBRR or the Open Source Maturity Model of CapGemini The biggest problem of those methods is related to the fact that the non functional assessment that is estimating the quality of the code and its community and liveness is a non trivial activity that involves the evaluation and understanding of many different aspects of how FLOSS is produced For this reason we have worked within the FLOSSMETRICS project on a new approach that is entirely automated and based on automated extraction of the quality parameters from the available information on the project its repository and mailing lists The first result is a set of significant variables that collectively give a set of quality indicators of the code and the community of developers around the project these indicators will be included in the public database of projects and will give a simple semaphore like indication of what aspects may be critical and what are the project strengths On the other hand we have worked on the integration of the functional aspects in the evaluation process that is how to weight in features vs the risk that the project may introduce For this reason we have added to our guide a new simplified evaluation schema that includes both aspects in a single graph Creating a graph for a product selection involves three easy steps starting from the list of features extract those considered to be indispensable from the optional ones all projects lacking in indispensable features are excluded from the list for every optional feature a 1 score is added to the project feature score obtaining a separate score for each project using the automated tools from FLOSSMETRICS a readiness score is computed using the following rule for every green in the liveness and quality parameters a 1 score is added 1 for every red This gives for each project a position in a two dimensional graph like this one The evaluator can then prioritize the selection according to the kind of adoption that is planned those that are mission critical and that requires a high project stability and a good probability that the project itself is successful and alive will prefer the project positioned on the right hand of the graph while those that are more experimental will favour the project placed in the top This approach integrates the advantage of automated estimation of quality and can be applied to the FLOSSMETRICS parameters or the previous QSOS ones with a visual approach that provides in a single image the risk or inherent suitability of a set of projects I hope that this may help in reducing that 20 of cost that is actually spent in deciding which package to use thus improving the economic effectiveness or freeing more resources for other practical activities FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS migration 1 Comment The FLOSSMETRICS OpenTTT guide in French Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models blog on June 23rd 2009 Just a brief update the NTIC CRCI Bourgogne and ARIST jointly translated our FLOSSMETRICS OpenTTT guide for small and medium enterprises in French The guide is available as a pdf file For more information this page at AgenceNTIC Bourgogne FLOSS open source OSS adoption No Comments Freeriding participation and another modest proposal Posted by cdaffara in OSS adoption OSS business models on June 10th 2009 There has been in the past several articles related to freeriding that is the use of OSS without any apparent form of reciprocal contribution be it in a monetary form or in terms of source code I am not sympathetic to this view in general because it masks an ill posed question that is if you use someone code are you required to give something back It is in my view an ill posed question because it mixes at the same level ethical and economic questions and because it clearly avoids all the potential non code contributions that are implicit in use even in absence of back contributions First of all about ethical participation open source code is available for all without any form of implicit additional moral burden the only rules that govern it are those that are laid out in the license itself So if the license for example allows for unconstrained use of a binary product derived from OSS code for example Eclipse than it should not be expected from the majority of use any incremental contribution of any kind it is simply not realistic to imagine that suddendly all the Eclipse users should start contributing back because they are feeling guilty It is different when we think in economic terms that is in terms of R D sharing in this frame of reference every user and potential contributors has an implicit model that gives a reason or not to contribute something for example when there is an opportunity for reducing the cost of future maintenance by making it part of the official code base This is a much more complex activity because it requires first of all a high level of comprehension of the distributed development model that underlies most OSS projects and then a clear and unambiguous path for contributing back something this kind of contribution channel is clearly present only in some very high level and sophisticated projects like the Eclipse consortium The second misunderstanding is related to the hidden role of users and non code contributors Most project even our FLOSSMETRIC one measure only code contributions but this is just a small part of the potential contributions that may be provided As the contributors map of OpenOffice org shows There are many non code contributions like native language support documentation marketing word of mouth dissemination and so on Even the fact that the software is used is a value it can be for example used in marketing material for an eventual monetization effort and is indirect demonstration of quality the more users you have the more inherent value the software may be inferred to be valuable for at least a category of users I understand the gripes of commercial OSS vendors that would like to monetize every use of a software product and discover that their software is used in some large company without giving back any monetary contribution I took as an example Alfresco General Electric uses Alfresco s software throughout the company while paying us nothing and yet we re having a banner year While I am sure that Matt Asay

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/open-source/page/6/ (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • open source « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    up open source projects to a larger audience This kind of monetary contribution is the exception not the role and using this data point to extend it to the fact that most projects are not dependent on external contributions or do so in limited way is an unwarranted logic jump I must say that I am more in agreement with Tarus Balog that in his post called humorously sour grapes wrote The fact that marketing people can t squeeze value out of community doesn t mean that communities don t have value OpenNMS is a complex piece of software and it takes some intense dedication to get to the point where one can contribute code I don t expect anyone to sit down and suddenly dedicate hours and hours of their life working on it Plus I would never expect someone to contribute anything to OpenNMS unless they started out with some serious free loader time This resonates with my research experience where under the correct conditions communities of contributors provide a non trivial benefit to the vendor on the other hand as we found in our previous FLOSSMETRICS research monetization barrier can be a significant hurdle for external disengaged participation and this may explain why companies that use an open core or dual licensing model tend to see no external community at all On the other hand when community participation is welcomed and there is no cross selling external participations may provide significant added value to a project A good example is Funambol that has one of the best community managers I can think of and a Twitter post I recently read about them HUGE contribution to funambol MS Exchange connector from mailtrust Way to go community rocks Are commercial OS providers really interested in dismissing this kind of contributions as irrelevant FLOSS open source OSS adoption 5 Comments Economic Free Software perspectives Posted by cdaffara in OSS business models OSS data on May 4th 2009 How do you make money with Free Software was a very common question just a few years ago Today that question has evolved into What are successful business strategies that can be implemented on top of Free Software This is the beginning of a document that I originally prepared as an appendix for an industry group white paper as I received many requests for a short data concrete document to be used in university courses on the economics of FLOSS I think that this may be useful as an initial discussion paper A pdf version is available here for download Data and text was partially adapted from the results of the EU projects FLOSSMETRICS and OpenTTT open source business models and adoption of OSS within companies COSPA adoption of OSS by public administrations in Europe CALIBRE and INES open source in industrial environments I am indebted with Georg Greve of FSFE that wrote the excellent introduction more details on the submission here and that kindly permitted redistribution This text is licensed under CC by SA attribution sharealike 3 0 I would grateful for an email to indicate use of the text as a way to keep track of it at cdaffara conecta it Free Software defined 1985 is defined by the freedoms to use study share improve Synonyms for Free Software include Libre Software c a 1991 Open Source 1998 FOSS and FLOSS both 200X For purposes of this document this usage is synonymous with Open Source by the Open Source Initiative OSI Economic Free Software Perspectives Introduction How do you make money with Free Software was a very common question just a few years ago Today that question has evolved into What are successful business strategies that can be implemented on top of Free Software In order to develop business strategies it is first necessary to have a clear understanding of the different aspects that you seek to address Unfortunately this is not made easier by popular ambiguous use of some terms for fundamentally different concepts and issues e g Open Source being used for a software model development model or business model These models are orthogonal like the three axes of the three dimensional coordinate system their respective differentiators are control software model collaboration development model revenue business model The software model axis is the one that is discussed most often On the one hand there is proprietary software for which the vendor retains full control over the software and the user receives limited usage permission through a license which is granted according to certain conditions On the other hand there is Free Software which provides the user with unprecedented control over their software through an ex ante grant of irrevocable and universal rights to use study modify and distribute the software The development model axis describes the barrier to collaboration ranging from projects that are developed by a single person or vendor to projects that allow extensive global collaboration This is independent from the software model There is proprietary software that allows for far reaching collaboration e g SAP with it s partnership program and Free Software projects that are developed by a single person or company with little or no outside input The business model axis describes what kind of revenue model was chosen for the software Options on this axis include training services integration custom development subscription models Commercial Off The Shelve COTS Software as a Service SaaS and more These three axes open the space in which any software project and any product of any company can freely position itself That is not to say all these combinations will be successful A revenue model based on lock in strategies with rapid paid upgrade cycles is unlikely to work with Free Software as the underlying software model This approach typically occurs on top of a proprietary software model for which the business model mandates a completed financial transaction as one of the conditions to grant a license It should be noted that the overlap of possible business models on top of the different software models is much larger than usually understood The ex ante grant of the Free Software model makes it generally impossible to attach conditions to the granting of a license including the condition of financial transaction But it is possible to implement very similar revenue streams in the business model through contractual constructions trademarks and or certification Each of these axes warrants individual consideration and careful planning for the goals of the project If for instance the goal is to work with competitors on a non differentiating component in order to achieve independence from a potential monopolistic supplier it would seem appropriate to focus on collaboration and choose a software model that includes a strong Copyleft licence The business model could potentially be neglected in this case as the expected return on investment comes in the form of strategic independence benefits and lower licence costs In another case a company might choose a very collaborative community development model on top of a strong Copyleft licence with a revenue model based on enterprise ready releases that are audited for maturity stability and security by the company for its customers The number of possible combinations is almost endless and the choices made will determine the individual character and competitive strengths and weaknesses of each company Thinking clearly about these parameters is key to a successful business strategy Strategic use of Free Software vs Free Software Companies According to Gartner usage of Free Software will reach 100 percent by November 2009 That makes usage of Free Software a poor criterion for what makes a Free Software company Contribution to Free Software projects seems a slightly better choice but as many Free Software projects have adopted a collaborative development model in which the users themselves drive development that label would then also apply to companies that aren t Information Technology IT companies IT companies are among the most intensive users of software and will often find themselves as part of a larger stack or environment of applications Being part of that stack their use of software not only refers to desktops and servers used by the company s employees but also to the platform on top of which the company s software or solution is provided Maintaining proprietary custom platforms for a solution is inefficient and expensive and depending upon other proprietary companies for the platform is dangerous In response large proprietary enterprises have begun to phase out their proprietary platforms and are moving towards Free Software in order to leverage the strategic advantages provided by this software model for their own use of software on the platform level These companies will often interact well with the projects they depend upon contribute to them and foster their growth as a way to develop strategic independence as a user of software What makes these enterprises proprietary is that for the parts where they are not primarily users of software but suppliers to their downstream customers the software model is proprietary withholding from its customers the same strategic benefits of Free Software that the company is using to improve its own competitiveness From a customer perspective that solution itself becomes part of the platform on which the company s differentiating activities are based This as stated before is inefficient expensive and a dangerous strategy Assuming a market perspective it represents an inefficiency that provides business opportunity for other companies to provide customers with a stack that is Free Software entirely and it is strategically and economically sane for customers to prefer those providers over proprietary ones for the very same reasons that their proprietary suppliers have chosen Free Software platforms themselves Strategically speaking any company that includes proprietary software model components in its revenue model should be aware that its revenue flow largely depends upon lack of Free Software alternatives and that growth of the market as well as supernatural profits generated through the proprietary model both serve to attract other companies that will make proprietary models unsustainable When that moment comes the company can either move its revenue model to a different market or it has to transform its revenue source to work on top of a software model that is entirely Free Software So usage of and contribution to Free Software are not differentiators for what makes a Free Software company The critical differentiator is provision of Free Software downstream to customers In other words Free Software companies are companies that have adopted business models in which the revenue streams are not tied to proprietary software model licensing conditions Economic incentives of Free Software adoption The broad participation of companies and public authorities in the Free Software market is strictly related to an economic advantage in most areas the use of Free Software brings a substantial economic advantage thanks to the shared development and maintenance costs already described by researchers like Gosh that estimated an average R D cost reduction of 36 The large share of internal Free Software deployments explains why some of the economic benefits are not perceived directly in the business service market as shown by Gartner Gartner predicts that within 2010 25 of the overall software market will be Free Software based with rougly 12 of it internal to companies and administrations that adopt Free Software The remaining market still substantial is based on several different business models that monetize the software using different strategies A recent update february 2009 of the FLOSSMETRICS study on Free Software based business model is presented here after an analysis of more than 200 companies the main models identified in the market are Dual licensing the same software code distributed under the GPL and a proprietary license This model is mainly used by producers of developer oriented tools and software and works thanks to the strong coupling clause of the GPL that requires derivative works or software directly linked to be covered under the same license Companies not willing to release their own software under the GPL can obtain a proprietary license that provides an exemption from the distribution conditions of the GPL which seems desirable to some parties The downside of dual licensing is that external contributors must accept the same licensing regime and this has been shown to reduce the volume of external contributions which are limited mainly to bug fixes and small additions Open Core previously called split Free Software proprietary or proprietary value add this model distinguishes between a basic Free Software and a proprietary version based on the Free Software one but with the addition of proprietary plug ins Most companies following such a model adopt the Mozilla Public License as it allows explicitly this form of intermixing and allows for much greater participation from external contributions without the same requirements for copyright consolidation as in dual licensing The model has the intrinsic downside that the Free Software product must be valuable to be attractive for the users i e it should not be reduced to crippleware yet at the same time should not cannibalise the proprietary product This balance is difficult to achieve and maintain over time also if the software is of large interest developers may try to complete the missing functionality in Free Software thus reducing the attractiveness of the proprietary version and potentially giving rise to a full Free Software competitor that will not be limited in the same way Product specialists companies that created or maintain a specific software project and use a Free Software license to distribute it The main revenues are provided from services like training and consulting the ITSC class and follow the original best code here and best knowledge here of the original EUWG classification DB 00 It leverages the assumption commonly held that the most knowledgeable experts on a software are those that have developed it and this way can provide services with a limited marketing effort by leveraging the free redistribution of the code The downside of the model is that there is a limited barrier of entry for potential competitors as the only investment that is needed is in the acquisition of specific skills and expertise on the software itself Platform providers companies that provide selection support integration and services on a set of projects collectively forming a tested and verified platform In this sense even GNU Linux distributions were classified as platforms the interesting observation is that those distributions are licensed for a significant part under Free Software licenses to maximize external contributions and leverage copyright protection to prevent outright copying but not cloning the removal of copyrighted material like logos and trademark to create a new product 1 The main value proposition comes in the form of guaranteed quality stability and reliability and the certainty of support for business critical applications Selection consulting companies companies in this class are not strictly developers but provide consulting and selection evaluation services on a wide range of project in a way that is close to the analyst role These companies tend to have very limited impact on the Free Software communities as the evaluation results and the evaluation process are usually a proprietary asset Aggregate support providers companies that provide a one stop support on several separate Free Software products usually by directly employing developers or forwarding support requests to second stage product specialists Legal certification and consulting these companies do not provide any specific code activity but provide support in checking license compliance sometimes also providing coverage and insurance for legal attacks some companies employ tools for verify that code is not improperly reused across company boundaries or in an improper way Training and documentation companies that offer courses on line and physical training additional documentation or manuals This is usually offered as part of a support contract but recently several large scale training center networks started offering Free Software specific courses R D cost sharing A company or organization may need a new or improved version of a software package and fund some consultant or software manufacturer to do the work Later on the resulting software is redistributed as open source to take advantage of the large pool of skilled developers who can debug and improve it A good example is the Maemo platform used by Nokia in its Mobile Internet Devices like the N810 within Maemo only 7 5 of the code is proprietary with a reduction in costs estimated in 228M and a reduction in time to market of one year Another example is the Eclipse ecosystem an integrated development environment IDE originally released as Free Software by IBM and later managed by the Eclipse Foundation Many companies adopted Eclipse as a basis for their own product and this way reduced the overall cost of creating a software product that provides in some way developer oriented functionalities There is a large number of companies universities and individual that participate in the Eclipse ecosystem as an example As recently measured IBM contributes for around 46 of the project with individuals accounting for 25 and a large number of companies like Oracle Borland Actuate and many others with percentages that go from 1 to 7 This is similar to the results obtained from analysis of the Linux kernel and show that when there is an healthy and large ecosystem the shared work reduces engineering cost significantly it is estimated that it is possible to obtain savings in terms of software research and development of 36 through the use of Free Software this is in itself the largest actual market for Free Software as demonstrated by the fact that the majority of developers are using at least some Free Software within their own code 56 2 Indirect revenues A company may decide to fund Free Software projects if those projects can create a significant revenue source for related products not directly connected with source code or software One of the most common cases is the writing of software needed to run hardware for instance operating system drivers for specific hardware In fact

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/open-source/page/7/ (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cdaffara « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    new issue of the European Journal for the Informatics Professional Friday August 21st 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS migration Posted in OSS adoption blog No Comments DoD OSCMIS a great beginning of a new OSS project Thursday August 20th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models public administrations Posted in OSS adoption blog 5 Comments A snippet of truth Microsoft s lawyers on patent trolls Tuesday August 18th 2009 Tags open source software patents Posted in blog divertissements 1 Comment Some observations on licenses and forge evolution Wednesday August 12th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS business models Posted in OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data 2 Comments The different reasons for company code contributions Wednesday July 15th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models Posted in OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data 4 Comments The new form of Open Core or how everyone was right Thursday July 9th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models Posted in OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data 4 Comments Older Entries Newer Entries blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized April 2015 M T

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/author/admin/page/7/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cdaffara « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    models 1 Comment The FLOSSMETRICS OpenTTT guide in French Tuesday June 23rd 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption Posted in OSS business models blog No Comments Freeriding participation and another modest proposal Wednesday June 10th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models Posted in OSS adoption OSS business models 2 Comments Horses carriages and cars the shifting OSS business models and a proposal Monday June 8th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS business models Posted in OSS business models OSS data 3 Comments Random bits and pieces Matt Asay Tarus Android and more Wednesday May 13th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source Posted in OSS business models divertissements 1 Comment Why we still debate open core and why it will not matter anymore Friday May 8th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source Posted in OSS business models 5 Comments On OSS communities and other common traps Wednesday May 6th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption Posted in OSS adoption OSS business models 5 Comments Economic Free Software perspectives Monday May 4th 2009 Tags FLOSS open source OSS adoption Posted in OSS business models OSS data 8 Comments Older Entries Newer Entries blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/author/admin/page/8/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cdaffara « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    models OSS data 4 Comments A brief research summary Friday April 17th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data blog 2 Comments Open source and certified systems Thursday April 16th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data No Comments MXM patents and licenses clarity is all it takes Friday April 10th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data blog 2 Comments Another hypocrite post Open Source After Jacobsen v Katzer Wednesday April 8th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data divertissements 5 Comments See you in Brussels the European OpenClinica meeting Wednesday April 8th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data blog 2 Comments Reliability of open source from a software engineering point of view Monday April 6th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 7 Comments Dissecting words for fun and profit or how to be a few years too late Friday April 3rd 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data divertissements 4 Comments Older Entries Newer Entries blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized April 2015 M T W T F S S Aug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/author/admin/page/9/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cdaffara « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    March 18th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 2 Comments Estimating savings from OSS code reuse or where does the money comes from Tuesday March 17th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized 10 Comments OSS based business models a revised study based on 218 companies Monday March 16th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 4 Comments Another take on the financial value of open source Friday March 13th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 2 Comments Our definitions of OSS based business models Friday March 13th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 5 Comments Comparing companies effectiveness a response to Savio Rodrigues Monday March 9th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized 4 Comments Rethinking OSS business model classifications by adding adopters value Friday March 6th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 17 Comments Older Entries Newer Entries blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized April 2015 M T W T F S S Aug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/author/admin/page/10/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • cdaffara « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized 2 Comments Random walks and Microsoft Thursday February 26th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data blog divertissements 1 Comment Transparency and dependability for external partners Wednesday February 25th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data blog 1 Comment On business models and their relevance Tuesday February 24th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 3 Comments The dynamics of OSS adoption 1 Tuesday February 24th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 5 Comments Why use OSS in product development Friday February 20th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data 5 Comments Hello world Tuesday February 17th 2009 Posted in OSS business models OSS data blog No Comments Newer Entries blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS adoption OSS business models OSS data Uncategorized April 2015 M T W T F S S Aug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Archives August 2012 July 2012 March 2012 November 2011 September 2011 July 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/author/admin/page/11/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive