Updates from December, 2007 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 4:27 pm on December 3, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    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

     
  • Roberto Galoppini 12:29 pm on December 2, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    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

     
    • Johan 3:25 pm on December 3, 2007 Permalink

      Interesting note but you miss a big point, GPL3 does not address the distribution of software over the internet. The terms in the license address distribution or re-distribution by the old methods. Google re-distributes MySql over the web and is not bound to submit their modifications back to MySql. We could all make significant additions to SugarCRM and host the advances with no need to submit them back to the community. We could even host SugarCRM and offer it for free. The cost of hosting has gone down significantly, do I smell a advertising model ? I may host SugarCRM for free just for the heck of it. My company does some modifications and we’ll have a better CRM solution and no need to share this with SugarCRM.

      SugarCRM made a big mistake!!!! I am not sure why you are looking to rationalize bad decisions by a company that should have been smarter. This was a critical mistake and will affect their future!

    • Roberto Galoppini 6:35 pm on December 3, 2007 Permalink

      Johan,

      I have extensively talked about the GPL loophole before, that’s why I didn’t mention it here.

      SugarCRM has some unique selling points (see the above mentioned post), and it is definitely not trivial to spoil their business.

      About SugarCRM’s strategy, I must tell you that I am quite impressed by their community: they look pretty smart, honestly.

    • Johan 1:13 am on December 4, 2007 Permalink

      Hello Robert,

      Thank you for the reply but I still see tremendous exposure for SugarCRM. On a big picture level, I really don’t see how they can go public and file an S-1 listing the business risks and have anyone back their offering. The hosting of SugarCRM for free with focused updates that make “my version” a better solution would be a killer for them. Keep in mind they would be burdened with the heavy lifting of the core system whereas my “company” could focus on additional features. That is a big benefit for me and to Sugar’s detriment.

    • P.Woods 8:31 pm on December 9, 2007 Permalink

      What does “original way to abide the GPL” mean?
      I can’t think of the word you really meant instead of “abide.”

    • Roberto Galoppini 5:40 pm on December 10, 2007 Permalink

      It is pretty original because no one took publicly advantage of the section 7 of the GPLv3 for this purpose yet.

    • Michel 11:28 pm on January 5, 2008 Permalink

      I must agree with Johan’s comment, the GPL3 licensing approach or interpretation of it by SugarCRM is quiet questionable indeed. It is a scary accommodation for anybody planning to use this project in the long term. And the question remains… what and when will be the next amendment made…

      It appears like a big contradiction where one extensive use of available source code and ideas has very little ‘reconnaissance’ in regards to its ‘sub’ stance . What about the amazing community of contributors which has helped SugarCRM expand upon its grand business scheme? Base on its licensing condition, I could just imagine what it would look like if all the ingenuous creators had little icons showing what they did or come up with on SugarCRM.

      As an organization SugarCRM has the merit for good integration of LAMP. One must also admit its marketing attraction strength which brings common richness to all with a lite subtle condition to its use. But one must wonder what this tiny little licensing condition might hold for the future?

    • Roberto Galoppini 12:22 pm on January 6, 2008 Permalink

      Michel I think it is important to sort out if it is the GPL3 licensing approach or interpretation of it by SugarCRM. What I am saying, and I am not alone, is that the Free Software Foundation, Eben Moglen and open source attorneys like Mark Radcliffe they all know that.

      I am not convinced that it is a scary accommodation, on the contrary I firmly believe it doesn’t make free software less free.
      Quoting you:

      What about the amazing community of contributors which has helped SugarCRM expand upon its grand business scheme? Base on its licensing condition, I could just imagine what it would look like if all the ingenuous creators had little icons showing what they did or come up with on SugarCRM.

      Attribution probably is not the best ever solution, but it sounds like the most appropriate when we talk of corporate production model.

      Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions – it only guarantees equality of opportunity (Irving Kristol).

  • Roberto Galoppini 3:57 pm on December 1, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    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 worldAras 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.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel