Docstoc

Open Source

Document Sample
Open Source Powered By Docstoc
					Open Source




              Pit Steinlin
              ps@brainon.ch
                  Who does it
• IBM does it
   – Check out www.alphaworks.ibm.com
• DB makers do it
   – SAP™ DB™ database management system
• CRM manufacturer do it
   – Anteil‘s opensourceCRM
• CAD makers do it
   – IntelliCAD (?)
• brain://on does it
   – Dynaworks
   – Ajax
• Everybody does it
               Who wants it
• The Norwegian state
• The French defense department
• The conference of the heads of IT departments of
  the German states

• Everybody who doesn't want to put all his eggs
  into one basket.

• Your customer?
• Yourself ?
      Tends to be a buzz word,
• Smells like pizza, cola and other stereotypes
• Sounds like funky systems and cryptic
  languages
• Makes guys famous
  – Who remembers the ATT Unix team members?
• Kind of „free“ software written by creative
  philanthropist?
           but is a precise thing
• Open source definition:
  –   Free Redistribution
  –   Source Code
  –   Derived works
  –   Integrity of author‘s source code
  –   No discrimination
  –   Not product specific / No contamination of
      other products
         Free Redistribution
• Open source package can be redistributed
  freely.
• Open Source package can be sold as part of a
  product package.
• No reality or fee allowed for the open source
  package.

• Reason : block the desire for the fast buck
  instead of investing into the future of the
  project
               Source Code
• Open source package must include source code
  or means of access to the source code
• Open source package source code may not be
  obfuscated.
• Open source package may be delivered in
  source code or binary form.

• Reason : it‘s all about evolution and therefore
  access must be provided
           Derived Works
• Open source package must allow
  modification under the same OS license.
• Derived open source packages may be
  distributed as the original open source
  package.

• Reason : static code isn‘t evolving, one
  must be able to experiment
     Integrity of The Author's
           Source Code.
• Modification of original source code must be
  allowed, but the author may request different
  names or modification only by means of
  „patching“

• Reason: The user has a right to know who
  wrote the code and the programmers have the
  right to protect their reputation.
   No Discrimination Against
      Persons or Groups
• No comment
• Reason : No comment

• Note: Export restrictions cannot be
  enforced via an open source license. The
  license may include a warning and a
  reminder, but may not include any
  restriction.
   No Discrimination Against
      Fields of Endeavor
• No comment?

• Reason : No license traps that may
  prevent open source licensed projects
  from being used commercially.
      Distribution of License
• Rights attached to the original package
  must be redistributed with the package.

• Reason: once open source, always open
  source – else one might stop the freedom
  in the first distribution
License Must Not Be Specific to
         a Product
• Rights adhering to one package cannot be
  dependent on the presence of another
  package

• Reason : No license traps that may
  prevent open source licensed projects
  from being used commercially.
License Must Not Contaminate
       Other Software
• Cannot influence distribution of
  accompanying software

• Reason : distributors have the right to
  decide what they distribute.
            Why should I care?
• A few reasons to think of open source
   – Technology
   – Press awareness
   – Customer demand
If you‘re working on technology

–   Share the effort
–   Breed-in new ideas
–   Profit of some other guys work
–   Establish a quasi standard through wide-spread use
–   „the best programmers always work for the other
    company“
If you need more press awareness
– Open source IS trendy.
– Polish your image.
– Gives some good quarterly success stories for the
  share-holders.
– A loss-leader might get you the attention you need for
  your „real“ application.
     If your customers demand it
–   Independence from a single supplier
–   Broader perspectives for the future of the project
–   No Y10K fears
–   An easy way to avoid contractual hassles.
   Sounds like loosing money, eh?
• What if doomsday comes?
  –   Monopoly value goes to nil
  –   Market value goes to nil
  –   Use value is not enough to support development
  –   Professional programming industry collapses
  –   Programmers starve
  –   Nobody can program decently any more
  –   All die, and the rats take over
           Perhaps unlikely, as..
• Use value remains
     • A company will profit from having a program
       written, no matter whether it‘s free at the end.
     • Ergo, programmers will still get paid
                          As
• Market value remains
     • Profit shifts to handling, bundling and supporting
       the application.
     • Different flavors are still around
                      And as
• Monopoly value remains
    • Takes a lot of time
           to read code to understand it
           to understand code to use it
           to understand code to modify it
              And anyhow,
• Insects will take over
 Once you decided to make an open
    source project, what next?
• Think again
  – Is the project really suited for open source?
  – Can I provide the additional work it needs?
  – How can I keep the ratio of suckers vs pusher in a
    healthy range?
• Find a suitable license model
• Prepare your code
• Prepare your project management
  Which license‘s the best for you?
• Frankly, I don‘t know



• But check for the OSI certificate
               Different flavors
•   GNU General Public License / GNU Lesser Public License
•   BSD License
•   MIT License
•   Mozilla Public License
•   IBM Public License
•   MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License
•   Ricoh Source Code Public License
•   Apache Software License
•   Artistic License
•   ...
•   And more to come – check for the OSI certificate
            Charted differences..
                       PD    Artistic   BSD   GPL

is free?               yes     yes      yes   yes
copies must be free?   no      yes      yes   yes
must provide source?   no      yes      no    yes
modified works must
be free/open?          no      yes      no    yes
derived works must
be free/open?          no      no       no    yes
must credit the
author/owner?          no      yes      yes   yes
must rename
modified binaries?     no      yes      no    yes
     Our favorite : the artistic license
•   Free distribution of the package
•   Bug fixes don‘t count as modifications
•   Allows use in commercial products
•   Allows redistribution in binary form
•   Allows a certain control over the project by the
    developers.
    – Getting feedback
    – Designing the „standard version“
• Protects the developers copyright & reputation
    – Modifications must be renamed and documented
  Once you have your license, what
               next
• Requirements for the project
   – Code should work and have a useful functionality.
   – Code should be very well documented.
• Requirements for the infrastructure
   –   Web hosting
   –   Mailing lists
   –   Somebody that moderates the development process
   –   Somebody that maintains the project
               ADGE?
• ADGE shows that competitors can be
  partners in technology.
• ADGE has access to the best AutoCAD
  programmers based in Europe.
• ADGE has already run „open source“
  projects since its conception.
• ADGE members all can benefit from
  advances in technology.
            Likely projects?
• An ADGE Open source license with OSI
  certificate?
• XML integration and wrapper classes
• Custom entity classes
  – smart groups with API
  – High level entities
• Java or C# extensions
         How could that work?
• This is your turn to answer now
  –   Who‘s using open source software?
  –   Who‘s contributing to open source software?
  –   Who‘s made a project open source?
  –   Who‘s a philanthropist by heart?
art?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:29
posted:5/21/2012
language:English
pages:32