Monthly Archive for December, 2007

Open Source TCO: look at the COSPA frameworks (part 1)!

The EC funded COSPA project recently mentioned, defined frameworks to identify possible returns or losses of a transition to Open Data Standards or Open Source software.

frameworksTwo frameworks by clbaran

The Workpackage 3 derived two frameworks. The first one, from assimilation theory, is aimed at investigating adoption, is in relation to the often-found gap between initial acquisition and eventual adoption of a technology.

Acquiring Open Source software is easy, so the distinction between the adoption events of acquisition and actual deployment of a technology is of great importance. Considering that most of the time there is no blueprint indicating the required steps to guarantee successful deployment of OSS, the gap between the acquisition and actual deployment is often significant.

The following set of constructs form the framework used to investigate the assimilation of Open Source software:

  • Organization age & size - Older organizations are expected to be risk averse and less likely to undertake radical IT implementation initiatives such as OSS. Also, larger organizations may be better able to leverage the advantages of new technology, and have access to appropriately skilled personnel.
    .
  • Industry type - Certain industry types may be more capable of leveraging the benefits of technology as it may suit their particular value chain configuration.
    .
  • Strategic investment rationale - Strategic value propositions may justify resource commitments to adopt potentially beneficial technologies.
    .
  • Increasing returns to adoption - Economies of scale and network externality effects may arise through the increasing contribution of additional adopters.
    .
  • Knowledge barriers - extent of experience - Assimilation of new technology can be impeded by lack of relevant knowledge or experience.
    .
  • Top management championship - New technology assimilation may require radical and high-risk initiatives that require proactive top management championship.
    .
  • Extent of coordination - Coordination of knowledge across functional units of the organization can promote risk sharing & educate as to benefits of new technology.
    .
  • Sophistication of IT infrastructure - Organizations with sophisticated IT infrastructure are more likely to have higher levels of knowledge about new IT possibilities, and thus embark on innovative IT assimilation.

The second framework - related to the cost of transition - is aimed at revealing the causes of costs in relation to a specific context, especially to determine lock-in situations or to identify intangible costs. Intangible costs represent 75% of the IT when effects of innovation and productivity are monitored over more than five years, hence the importance to assess such costs.

TCO takes into account hidden costs and their propagation in the long run better than ROI, but also Switching Costs are important to better understand lock-in situations. Some switching costs are created by the vendor (endogenous) and are often measurable, others are exist in their own (exogenous), like the cost of gathering information about alternative products or vendors. Implicit costs, as customer uncertainty, are not measurable and often not even identifiable.

The framework used to assess the cost a transition to OSS take into account the Migration path (total migration from proprietary, partial from proprietary, partial from mixed, from scratch), the Type of Administration (High/Low economic resource growth, High/Low size of the organization) and with a strong emphasis on the difference between volatile nature of costs of migration and the cost of ownership.

Both migration and ownership costs depend on context, types of migration and organization, as above discussed. The framework defines measures and questions about five main causes of costs:

  1. Learning/training.
    .
    1. User acceptance: usefulness and ease of use;
      .
    2. Unproductive user labour: lack of productivity due to excessive time spent in training;
      .
    3. Internal training methods: casual learning/self-support;
      .
    4. Formal training methods: expenses for course time.
      .
  2. Software.
    .
    1. Acquisition and licenses fees: software and add-ons, installation included;
      .
    2. Maintenance: cost of routine tasks;
      .
    3. Operational interoperability;
      .
    4. Non standard PC configuration: configuration of new software;
      .
    5. Security: licenses cost to prevent security violations.
      .
  3. Contracts.
    .
    1. Loyalty programs: benefits from incumbent;
      .
    2. Contractual agreements: contractual commitments costs, including compensatory or liquidated damages.
      .
  4. Staffing.
    .
    1. IT-Staff payroll: including overtime and bonuses.
      .
    2. IT-Staff attitude/culture.
      .
  5. Support.
    .
    1. External consultancies: fees for external support and services;
      .
    2. Support search: including services for seeking qualifying apps and quality evaluation;
      .
    3. Security: labour cost for preventing security violations.

The next post will cover some case studies, focusing on how Open Source software is being used by public authorities across Europe.

Technorati Tags: oss, open business, COSPA, migration

Open Source Licensing: SugarCRM’s original way to abide the GPL

After discussing why SugarCRM would have no reason to adopt the AGPL, yesterday I happened to download the Sugar Community Edition from the download page. The About page let me wonder about a possible attribution loophole in the GPLv3.

New lightA new light by MumbleyJoe

Some licensing background first. Here an excerpt from the About page of the Sugar Community Edition 5.0:

The interactive user interfaces in modified source and object code versions of this program must display Appropriate Legal Notices, as required under Section 5 of the GNU General Public License version 3.

In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU General Public License version 3, these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the display of the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo. If the display of the logo is not reasonably feasible for technical reasons, the Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words “Powered by SugarCRM”.

Surprisingly it looks almost like the previous version of the about page (courtesy of Koder search engine):

All copies of the Covered Code must include on each user interface screen:
(i) the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo and
(ii) the SugarCRM copyright notice
in the same form as they appear in the distribution.See full license for requirements.

I am not a lawyer, but f I got it right, Section 7 of the GNU GPL version 3 permits modifications to the license for certain terms. Section 7 (b) asserts that for material you add to a covered work, you may supplement the terms of this License with terms:

b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it;

Section 7 became a viable tool to reintroduce somehow the attribution addendum contained in the SugarCRM Public license (Exhibit A).

The question is: is requiring a logo a reasonable author attribution? I presume this is the case, at least in Eben Moglen’s opinion. Moglen in his “SugarCRM’s Sweet Taste of Freedom” stated that SugarCRM is to be applauded, and I believe he knew already what I just found myself.

Badgeware is not only OSI approved, but it is also endorsed by the Free Software Foundation now, with its flagship license. The debate is over.

Back to my analysis about SugarCRM’s licensing strategy, it is now clear that SugarCRM and SugarCRM’s VCs do still care a lot about brand protection. Their unique selling points are really strong, but as a matter of fact they found a way to accomplish both goals: branding and the adoption of a much more compatible license.

Kudos to SugarCRM’s lawyers to sort it out.

Technorati Tags: oss, open business, commercial open source, sugarCRM, GPL, FSF, OSI

Open Source Future, Open Source tweets, Google Open Source Contest, Aras Open Source Strategy: links 1-12-2007

Certification aka “Some Assembly Required” - Billy Marshall, rPath CEO, is critical of Red Hat Appliance Operating System program. While Billy could be considered a “biased” source, he raised some interesting issues.

Open Source Map site faces success and growing pain - The Inquirer reports about the Buenos Aires GIS unit’s experience on running the city’s official map site on open source software.

GNU PDF - John Dowdell (Adobe) points to the Free Software Foundation GNU PDF project, read the full story at Linux.com.

Quality Open Source Calendaring / Scheduling? - Does posing questions to AskSlashdot worth? Jim R. Wilson asked about open source alternatives to Microsoft Outlook/Exchange, Novell Groupwise, and Google Calendar, read the answers.

Open source’s future: More Microsoft, bigger talent shortages - According to Raven Zachary the open source industry in 2008 will be marked by more news out of big IT vendors, less start-up funding, more M&A activity, and an increasingly serious talent shortage.

The Breadth of “Commercial” Use - Tom Hoffman on the importance of commercial use, answering to Stephen Downes criticizing the Cape Town Declaration.
Tweet Scan - Thanks to David Sterry you can search in real-time for Open Source tweets by now.

Google launches open source contest - The Highly Open Participation Contest will give pre-university students (over the age of 13) a list of challenges submitted by 10 open source organisations. Yet another open source mediation initiative by google, enjoy until 22th of January 2008!

Pure play open source Microsoft ISV details transformation from proprietary world - Aras Corporation, an ISV based in Andover (Massachusetts) launched an open source Product Lifecycle Management product released under an OSI approved Microsoft License. Read Dana’s post, who joined the event where Marc Lind, VP Marketing at Aras, presented Aras’ s Open Source Strategy.


About the Editor

Roberto Galoppini on Open Source Software
Roberto has over 20 years experience in the computer industry, and has spent the last 10 years working in the intersection of open source software and business development. Roberto has taken an active interest in different open source projects and organizations, he also served on some advisory boards, and helped large IT vendors, open source vendors and customers to design and deploy their open source strategies. He works at SourceForge, and opinions expressed here don't necessarily represent employer's positions, strategies, or opinion.