Commercial Open Source Software

Updates from July, 2010 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  Roberto Galoppini 12:49 pm on July 9, 2010 Permalink | Reply  

  Open Source Project Management Tools 

  SOS Open Source has been used to find and select open source web-based project management with issue-tracking and time-tracking tools to manage multiple IT projects, possibly localized in Italian (or at least open for internazionalization and localization).

  The pre-selection of project management programs started by focusing on some of the most famous web-based ones, excluding the following (for the following reasons):

  • Kforge, Project HQ, ProjectPier because maintained by a small group;
  • Collabtive, Feng Project, because too young (less than 3 years old);

  Launchpad, and Trac were eventually added to the final list of candidates (Read more at SOS Open Source.).

  Tweets that mention Open Source Project Management Tools -- Topsy.com, Roberto Galoppini, Andrea, and 1 other are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Tarus 1:48 pm on July 9, 2010 Permalink

    What about Project Open? (http://project-open.org/)

  • 

    Andrea 9:58 am on July 12, 2010 Permalink

    I can confirm 🙂
    RedMine is a good choice. We use it since last year with satisfaction.

  • 

    Roberto Galoppini 10:52 am on July 12, 2010 Permalink

    Hi Tarus,

    ]project-open[ has not been designed for managing IT projects, but it is definitely an option if you are loooking for an ERP-Project management solution.

    ]po[ is a community-led project with available commercial support and SaaS, with multi-language support (note: an Italian localized version is available). It is financing and project control features are interesting, case-studies are available at EOS, and it also integrated with Nagios for incident reports. It is written in TCL and it is scarcely commented (comments ratio: 12,9%, while on average is 20.4%) but a detailed roadmap is available and its architecture of participation seems sound.

  Reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

  Δ

• 

  Roberto Galoppini 4:42 pm on July 8, 2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: ColinBodell, GeorgeKroner, Kavin School, LeahBelsky, TimGolden, YuviKochar   

  Upcoming Open Source Webinars: Kaltura, OllianceGroup, Selenium 

  Enterprise Open Source Software Procurement and Support Best Practices – The CIO Panel from the 2010 Open Source Think Tank – Colin Bodell (VP Web Platforms, Amazon), Tim Golden (SVP Product Management, Bank of America) and Yuvi Kochar (CIO, The Washington Post Company)- will gather together to talk about the open source software acquisition and support challenges they have faced and share solutions they have developed to overcome these challenges.
  Jul 15, 2010 11:00 AM PDT. (More …)

  Tweets that mention Upcoming Open Source Webinars: Kaltura, OllianceGroup, Selenium -- Topsy.com is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
• 

  Roberto Galoppini 1:31 pm on July 7, 2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: open innovation ( 2 ), OWF ( 8 )   

  Open Innovation Awards 2010: The Demo Cup 

  The Open Innovation Demo Cup – a contest open to all open source projects and solutions getting ready for commercial launch or already on the market – will be held at the next Open World Forum on the 1st of October. (More …)

  Open Innovation Awards 2010: The Demo Cup | Open Hacking is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
• 

  Giuseppe Maxia 2:33 pm on July 5, 2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: GiuseppeMaxia ( 2 ), open core ( 6 ), open core licensing ( 2 )   

  Open to the core – The pragmatic freedom 

  Everyone seems to have an opinion on the open core debate, and a popular opinion seems to inflict some sort of excommunication to anyone having a less than pure open source monetization process. Therefore I thought that I would add some unsolicited input to this matter.

  Now, what is a pure open source monetization process? (More …)

  FreeBooteR, Martin Owens, matt, and 4 others are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Henrik Ingo 3:20 pm on July 5, 2010 Permalink

    Hi Giuseppe

    You already have at least 2 blogs, why write here? Anyway, I won’t spend energy on much discussion here, since your article doesn’t seem to bring much to the table that wasn’t argued and counter-argued already. But I’d like to make one correction, hopefully you’ll find this helpful:

    quote:
    That leaves you with the choice of pulling a business model from the basket of the non-pure business models, where you do one or more of the following:

    a. You license your code under the GPL or another free software license, and occasionally sell exceptions to the customers who ask for it (the so called dual licensing)

    :end quote

    Option a is not correctly classified. I’m not aware of anyone arguing that dual licensing wouldn’t be a “pure” and fully acceptable open source / OSD compliant business model. (It would be an interesting separate discussion to explore why this is, but the opinion here seems to be unanimous.) This is not to be confused with the critics who say dual licensing is a bad business model for making lots of money, or bad for having a really thriving community, but nobody is arguing it is not “pure” open source. (The OSD does not require you to make X amount of money or even to develop code efficiently.)

  • 

    Matthew Montgomey 4:49 pm on July 5, 2010 Permalink

    This is the classic Eric Raymond v Richard Stallman debate that has been going on for over a decade now. In the real world the realist trumps the idealist every time.

  • 

    JustSomeNick 7:26 pm on July 6, 2010 Permalink

    Very well written. Good stuff.

    You’re right- the absolutely zealous approach to having extremist purity from the FLOSS community is a little confusing. It really is something that people should think twice about before speaking.

    However there is one extremely significant point that was omitted here… There is a problem when there is an open source/free counterpart to a software suite (or application, etc etc) but is incredulously limited (to the point where it’s no better than a demo) and the company providing it takes more from the community than it gives. I know such a case is rare, but it does happen. Luckily most open source devs are smart enough to not invest into a project after they realize the company they are dealing with is basically using them.

    I mean, the Qualcomm 2D/3D kernel-side driver being open sourced is a prime example to this. David A from Redhat himself felt the insult of this himself. I know this does not -directly- compare to what you’re talking about, but the idea is the same.

    A lot of the community is pissed off at the ‘open core’ approach that attempts to explot the community rather than work with it. This is a fundamental difference that can be seen in much of the FLOSS folks’ outrage.

  • 

    matt 8:45 pm on July 9, 2010 Permalink

    it’s one thing to simply not open source something in it’s entirety, it’s another to prevent people from being able to program to it or hinder it. Really, how hard is that to figure out?

    Additionally, pragmatism? Your argument for pragmatism is full of anything but. I’d say it’s more an emotional argument than a logical one, honestly.

  • 

    Martin Owens 1:32 am on July 11, 2010 Permalink

    >> In the real world the realist trumps the idealist every time.

    In the real world idealists trump practicals every time, over the course of hundreds of years. Look at the Levellers, look at Tom Paine, they might have gotten beaten back but most of their ideals came to be implemented. Just wait and see.

    What is interesting is that most extreme pragmatists actually get angry and upset that idealists have any sort of voice. They seem to think that we should shut up and be quite and stop rocking the boat. Idealists tend to ask hard questions that are not easily answered.

    Well there is a time for strategic compromise and there is a time for dialectic problem solving. The problem with most pundits is that they’re not able to do either and instead must worrble on inaccurately with no added thoughts to the conflict at hand. The author here isn’t a pragmatist, he’s just a pundit.

  • 

    FreeBooteR 3:45 am on July 11, 2010 Permalink

    Pragmatism does not always trump freedom. Free software has not lost to open source. Both are still here thriving nicely.

• 

  Roberto Galoppini 8:11 am on July 4, 2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: technorati authority, technorati info tech   

  Technorati’s “Top 100 InfoTech” List 

  Yesterday Technorati’s Commercial Open Source blog page revealed Techorati Authority 424 and membership in the Top 100 Info Tech list, but with a totally different authority (546, see pictures below). (More …)

   
• 

  Roberto Galoppini 4:02 pm on July 2, 2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: andrewlampitt ( 2 ), business models ( 3 ), Day Software ( 3 ), Funambol ( 8 ), open core ( 6 ), open core licensing ( 2 ), open source business ( 16 ), simonphipps ( 5 ), StephenOGrady   

  Open Core is not a Business Model 

  “Open Core is the New Dual Licensing Model” is the last of a chain of interesting posts against or in favor of open core, coming from different realm of experience: the analyst guy Stephen O’Grady, the free software evangelist Simon Phipps, the hacker Brian Aker and last but not least the entrepreneur MÃ¥rten Mickos.

  Let’s dig now deeper into what is open core to business, and why it is not a business model. (More …)

  Tweets that mention Open Core is not a Business Model -- Topsy.com and Stefano Maffulli are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Stefano Maffulli 10:28 pm on July 3, 2010 Permalink

    Funambol is not Open Core as many people intend it. The whole open source package is feature complete and useful in enterprise as is, while only the portal (and some API that are used by it) of Funambol Carrier Edition is not open source. Funny enough, none of the customers have bought it either (see the list http://www.funambol.com/solutions/mobilesyncservices.php).