Updates from September, 2007 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 8:44 am on September 11, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source ECM: Nuxeo expands commercial staff 

    A Few days ago Nuxeo, a UK-based provider of Open Source Enterprise Content Management solutions based in Paris, announced the appointment of Steve Raby as their UK Country Manager.

    Nuxeo, is a European Open Source firm basically selling subscriptions and services to aid customers and partners to operate their projects on top of the Nuxeo platform.

    Nuxeo, that might be named a “pure player” – if such characterization still makes some sense – don’t reserve advanced features to proprietary versions – what we call Split OSS/Commercial product – providing also support on the “community” version.

    Stefane Fermigier, Nuxeo’s CEO, told me:

    We don’t make this kind of distinction between “community” and “professional” versions, there is only one Nuxeo version, which has all the features we can put into at a given time, and for which customers can buy support if they need.

    Steve Raby Steve Raby

    Nuxeo hiring Steve Raby – bringing his 25 years of sales experience, 17 years of which at Sun selling high-end solutions to Enterprise customers and dealing with partners, and 3 years at JBoss building up the UK/Northern Europe sales organization from scratch – made a step typical of “traditional” IT vendors. Stefane commented:

    Steve is the right guy for us at this stage of our development. For instance, during our first conversation with him, we was convinced after less that 15 minutes that he had a deep understanding of the open source business, that he could articulate very clearly the benefits for this approach for the customers.

    Open Source or not, it is still the business that pays!

    Technorati Tags: Open Source ECM, Open Source Strategy, ECM, StefaneFermigier, SteveRaby

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 3:55 pm on September 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source VoIP: “Open source Sustainability from the business perspective” conference at VON Europe 

    VON Europe Autumn will be held in Rome on the 26th and 27th of September, industry leaders from all over the world will talk about where IP communications is going in Europe. SIP, IMS, IPTV and Voice are all being covered at this event, along Open Source Telephony issues and perspectives.

    As chairman of the “Open Source Sustainability from the business perspective” conference I will be pleased to introduce Jon Hall ‘Maddog’ who will open the conference talking of “Open Source Telephony: the winning application in the Open Source world?”.

    Jon Hall MaddogJon Hall Maddog by Pizel y Dixel

    Next to him professor Alfonso Fuggetta will give a speech about “New Business Models and Open Source”, a topic he is looking into from a while now.

    Greg Vance – Digium Sales Manager – will bring us in the domain of Open Source PBX, talking about “Asterisk: an OS project that has become mainstream. What’s new”.

    Bogdan-Andrei Iancu – CEO of VOICE SYSTEM and co-founder of the OpenSER project – who on Wednesday 26 will held also a course on OpenSER Administration, will talk about “The OpenSer: from Universities to industrial applications”, an Open Source SIP server.Last but not least, Diego Gosmar, Giuseppe Innamorato, Stefano Osler, authors of the book “Asterisk e dintorni” will talk About Asterisk and beyond.

    Technorati Tags: Commercial Open Source, Open Source SIP, Open Source PBX, Asterisk, OpenSer , JonHallMaddog, AlfonsoFuggetta, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 12:05 pm on August 30, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Business Models: What is an Open Source Business Model? 

    Despite many articles talk about Open Source business models, and some papers describe also possible taxonomies of open source business models, none of them is analyzing in depth all components which describe the business logic of a specific firm.

    FLOSSMETRICS has assessed a list of 120 companies – resulting in the biggest empirical analysis of the business models adopted by OS firms done so far – while QualiPSo has analyzed 7 firms’ case studies. None of them has focused yet its attention on how pieces of the business fit together, eventually describing the company’s strategy, or how a specific firm differentiates itself and deals with the competition, either proprietary or FLOSS.

    not equalNot all lemons are created equal by Nan’s Pic’s

    Adopting Alex Osterwalder’s definition of business model, I tried to process the information about the “Distributing copies of an OSS product for a fee” business model“, i.e. just selling free software copies, not bundling any services such as technical support, consulting, systems integration and so on.

    The Value Proposition would be shrink-wrap open source products.

    The Customer Segment would target business customers, likely SMEs and professionals, having low bandwidth (a missprint?) and poor knowledge of OS existence.

    The Distribution Channel would definitely be a web site, too little margin for retail or worse to hire a sales team. In order to sell shrink-wrap OS products personalization it is a must, to exploit the long tail Community of Interest could play a great role.

    Chesbrough and Rosenbloom suggest to consider “Position in value network” and “Competitive Strategy”, and as matter of fact the competitors are all forges and repositories, Linux Magazines and so on.

    About the Competitive Strategy, Michael Porter identifies two types of advantages, the cost advantage and the differentiation advantage. Being difficult if not impossible to be cheaper than the competition, the only available option is serve customers’ idiosyncratic needs, I would say.

    Once identified an appropriate Differentiation Strategy, big marketing investments are needed to reach customers who don’t know open source products. Consider that if the business would ever work, competitors could easily imitate you, without spending time and effort doing software selection.

    At the end of the day, describing the business model and analyzing it helps to determine if it makes some sense, eventually ending to agree with Dana saying:

    The attempts by some to shrink-wrap open source products and sell them at the cost of packaging have, on the whole, been failures.

    Comparing business models could also be interesting. Reading “Do Some Business Models Perform better than Others? – A Study of the 1000 Largest US Firms” created a 16 different typologies of how firms differ in terms of two dimensions:

    what a company does and how they make money from doing it.

    It is worth to notice that some business models perform better than others, in particular selling the right to use assets is more profitable than selling ownership of assets.

    I am looking forward to apply these considerations within the joint research I am conducting with the FLOSSMETRICS project, may be adding a dimension or two to the “main revenue generation” and “licensing model” already included in the actual taxonomy.

    Technorati Tags: Open Source Strategies, business models, QualiPSo, FLOSSMETRICS

     

    • jheuristic 2:41 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink

      Hi —

      Good post.

      “Chesbrough and Rosenbloom suggest to consider “Position in value network” —

      Have a look at Open Value Networks.

      http://www.value-networks.com/

      Cordially,

      -j

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:49 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink

      Hi J,

      thanks for joining the conversation. I had a look at the Open Value Networks, and I read about GenIsis Value Network tool. I tried to download it, but apparently on SourceForge version 1.0 is not available.

      Did you use the tool by any chance? I see you mentioned it over kmblog, could you tell me what do you mean by this?

      Today, major social transformations like Web 2.0 and Cisco System’s The Human Network, are building new layers onto the OSI model.

    • David Meggitt 3:30 pm on October 9, 2007 Permalink

      Hi,

      An open source value network approach (refer again to http://www.value-networks.com ) to viewing a business model using Chesbrough and Rosenbloom that you cite can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/2whq3h

      Note the inclusion of “Standards” which has no mandated contractual relationship with the other participants in the network. Nevertheless, their inclusion is key and one way in which value networks such as that containing say Cisco is made resilient.

      Regards

      David Meggitt

    • Roberto Galoppini 10:40 am on October 11, 2007 Permalink

      David,

      thank you to join the conversation. As supporter and sponsor of these initiatives could you please sort out if the GenIsis Value Network tool is or not Open Source? As I wrote before I tried to download it, but on SourceForge version 1.0 is not available at the present stage.

    • David Meggitt 10:34 pm on October 12, 2007 Permalink

      Roberto…I have just had a look and the files are accessible to me, without any special log in.
      You can also see the number of downloads to date.
      I will check it out with the designer, however, if you are still having problems.

      David Meggitt

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:54 am on October 13, 2007 Permalink

      David you’re almost right..unfortunately the composer is no longer available and it became proprietary, so apparently you can download just plugins and documentation, but not the application itself. If this is the case, I could hardly call it open source. As a matter o fact Split/OSS Commercial products work just the other way around: the application is open, plugin are proprietary.

      Am I missing something David?

    • David Meggitt 9:52 am on November 30, 2007 Permalink

      Roberto,

      You are most likely correct. The software support to engaging with value network analysis (VNA) is being IP’d, with many more features, and likely to be launched next year.

      However, the real value is not the software but the recognition that VNA offers a new perspective or “lens” with which to visualise more realistically how organisations work. The material for that is all open source, as to method. There is also an information object model published for consultation.

      A recent large scale application with some 100 personnel enabled Boeing to increase productivity by a factor of six in redesigning a new organisation – the flight test “center” for the new Dreamliner aircraft. “Composer” was not needed for that.

      Hope that helps.

      David

    • Roberto Galoppini 2:14 pm on November 30, 2007 Permalink

      Hi David,

      for IP’d do you mean closed sourced? If this is the case I don’t see the point to pretend it to be open source.

      I am a firm believer that transparency pays, and I would see as appropriate a clear statement in the download page saying it all.

    • Marcin Jakubowski 2:41 pm on July 1, 2009 Permalink

      We are developing open business models from the grassroots perspective. However, we are well on our way to demonstrating that high quality, open source hardware (not only software) – can be produced cost-effectively according to this model. Please read our overview:

      http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=510

    • Giovani Spagnolo 4:13 pm on September 21, 2009 Permalink

      Ciao Roberto,

      Very nice blog posts about Open Source business models. If could be of interest, I have my (2003-2005) master/MBA thesis on “FLOSS as a business model” published on http://www.scribd.com/doc/11515318/20032005-O-Software-Livre-como-Modelo-de-Negocios-Monografia-de-Conclusao-MBA-Executivo-em-Gestao-Empresarial-Estrategica-EDUCONNAIPPE-USP

      cheers,
      giovani

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:45 am on September 22, 2009 Permalink

      Ciao Giovanni,

      unfortunately I’m not so fluent in Spanish, but I had a look at it and it seems interesting, let me know if you write an English version.

      By the way, say Hi to Alfonso, I met him years ago in Brussels but after that our roads didn’t cross anymore.

  • Roberto Galoppini 6:40 am on August 27, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    European Open Source Projects: Qualipso deliverables on business models (part II) 

    QualiPSo – the ever largest Open Source initiative funded by the European Commission – is making public its first results, and I just started to analyze them.

    The goal of the project is “to define and implement technologies, procedures and policies to leverage the Open Source Software development current practices to sound and well recognised and established industrial operations”.

    QualiPSo includes 7 research and development domains (QualiPSo Competence Centres, business models, next generation forge, trustworthy results and process, information management, interoperability, legal issues), articulated in 10 work areas.

    Today I read the deliverable “State of the art concerning business models for systems comprising open source software“, apparently the most promising result within the “business models” research area.

    autoreferentialityCalypso Cabaret by Sackerman519

    Looking at the document as a whole, basically it is an essay of pretty known and old articles, like the Seven open source business strategies for competitive advantage, by John Koenig, and the mentioned many times “Economics of Open Source” of my buddy Carlo Daffara, plus some minor citations. Not a single new business model, they just mentioned Open Source (?) Franchising, not exploiting it any further.

    I must admit I learned about Sunil Joshi citations, but I honestly expected to find something more than things grasped around the net, sometimes even without double check. For example they happened to cite the Orixo consortium, so I guess they didn’t take a chance to talk with a representative, neither to read Gianugo advising on using consortia nor looking at the Orixo’s events section. On the contrary I didn’t read a mention of ZEA or Open Source Consortium, just to name two of them. I would warmly recommend them to add these, at least.

    I found it auto-referential just as the already mentioned deliverable D2.1.2 , since chapter 3 “BIG INDUSTRY OSS BUSINESS MODELS CASE STUDIES” is only about 4 QualiPSo’s members.

    Last but not least, chapter 4 “SME OSS BUSINESS MODELS CASE STUDIES” results to be a list of cases collected by the official sites of those firms, mostly cut&pasting public information available, not a deep research I would say.

    QualipSO seems following a Ferengi’s rule: Sell the sizzle, not the steak, I hope they will come out with something interesting soon..

    Technorati Tags: commercial open source, research, public funded, QualiPSo, IST

     

    • Josef Assad 8:20 am on August 27, 2007 Permalink

      No surprises, Roberto.

      At a very high level, I think the involvement of the EU in open source needs to be more enabling and less leading. I don’t think free culture is rocket science, and I agree with you that regurgitation of what is known is a waste of funds, but it is also a natural consequence.

      Rather than create the environment for open source adoption, it is my opinion that EU funds would be better directed at creating the conditions through which a free culture environment will organically develop. I’ve emphasised the operative words.

      I don’t think free culture lends itself very willingly to massive orchestrated initiatives, but that doesn’t mean that dep pockets can’t make significant impact.

    • Roberto Galoppini 12:49 am on August 28, 2007 Permalink

      Hi Josef,

      to the create the conditions you talk about, the dissemination should have a prominent role in projects like this, but as Hemingway wrote:

      Before we take to sea we walk on land, Before we create we must understand.

      The research phase should investigate, analyze and organize known facts in depth, if its ambition is:

      to make Open source a formidable lever to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, accelerate ICT growth, and implement the i2010 policy for growth and jobs.

      What I am saying here, is that at the present stage deliverables like this can’t be an appropriate tool to help IT firms to include Open Source Software in their actual business strategy.

      About deep pockets, I must tell you that as European citizen I am concerned about how public money is spent.

    • GNUliano 2:43 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink

      Thank you very much Roberto for your post… I found it very useful and informative!

  • Roberto Galoppini 7:40 am on August 22, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    European Open Source Projects: Qualipso deliverables (part I) 

    QualiPSo – the ever largest Open Source initiative funded by the European Commission – is making public its first results.

    Waiting to eventually join the first QualiPSo conference, that will focus on the challenges that the Open Source model introduces while being integrated in industry strategies, I had a first look at deliverables within the “business models” research area, namely the deliverable State of the art concerning strategies for industry towards Open Source communities and vice versa (PDF).

    autoreferentialityThe gesture of “me” by timtak

    Too little is said about Open Source Consortium Model (paragraph 6.6), where across Europe there are quite a few indeed, and I am available to help QualiPSO researchers if they are willing to further investigate the matter.

    Could you believe that the chapter ATTITUDES AND STRATEGIES OF INDUSTRY TOWARDS OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITIES describes only examples where a QualiPSO member is involved?

    Apparently QualiPSo didn’t take yet into consideration my suggestion to make public their description of work as many others did already, stripping from only confidential information. This way everybody could find all possible details about the project, including the project management and exploitation/dissemination plan and the detailed Workplan. This way we might even get a rough idea of the cost of individual deliveries, while the average cost is already a known information, though.

    I am still convinced that transparency pays..

    Technorati Tags: commercial open source, research, public funded, QualiPSo, IST

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 5:30 pm on August 20, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Antivirus: ClamAV project sold to Sourcefire 

    The ClamAV project – the known open source anti-virus toolkit – last friday announced that all project’s Intellectual assets had been sold from the five key developers to Sourcefire, the firm maker of intrusion detection products based on Snort.

    Sold!Sold! by Pommykiwi

    Sourcefire, who recently launched its public offer, is likely to maintain ClamAV much in the same way as it has done with Snort. Martin Roesch, Sourcefire’s CTO, stated:

    The success of the ClamAV project is a direct reflection of the talent and dedication of the founding team and the project community. Sourcefire will continue to invest in the ClamAV technology, much as we have with Snort and Snort.org.

    As reported by Ohloh, over ClamAV history 13 contributors have submitted code, and only 6 have done it in the last year. As a matter of fact Sourcefire now is hiring the whole core group, and they are in the position to double-licensing it.

    Differently from StillSecure, or worse Tenable Security, Sourcefire seems willing to balance open source and business through an hybrid production model, making money possibly with the Twin licensing business model.

    I agree with the ClamAV team, saying that the acquisition by Sourcefire is a testament to the hard work of the entire ClamAV community, and I wonder: will they be able to retain external contributions (mainly virus signatures) from now on?

    Dana asks if open source users, are going to get caught in the trips-and-dramas of corporate finance, just as if they were using proprietary software. While I know that it might be so, I think that there are chance that Sourcefire will balance its business interests with the community’s ones, eventually finding a way to keep ClamAV’s OEM’s interest in the project.

    I disagree with Alan Shimel, who whishes that:

    anytime a commercial entity makes a licensing move like this, other companies that are using that open source tool band together with others in the community and fork the project as is their right.

    It is not efficient and likely not effective, above all unrealistic. On the contrary I would like to see other firms using ClamAV be part of the game. It is just up to Sourcefire find a way, if it makes some sense to them to work to build a ClamAV technological club.

    Best wishes to all ClamAV guys, congratulations!

    Technorati Tags: Commercial Open Source, Open Source Strategy, Sourcefire, ClamAV

     

    • mike 4:05 pm on June 16, 2008 Permalink

      Hi Roberto,

      Interesting trend: Another open source security project sold.

      OSSEC HIDS project acquired:
      http://www.ossec.net/main/ossec-project-acquired

      What do you think?

      -m

    • tom 11:22 am on July 11, 2008 Permalink

      Interesting! I have been using Win Clam for sometime and just happened to find this piece of news by chance.

      Which are other open source projects sold out in this manner?

    • Roberto Galoppini 4:57 pm on July 14, 2008 Permalink

      Not many really. community open source projects tend to stay that way for life, even if they become hybrid projects. Acquia, providing value-added services for Drupal is an example of what happens “usually”. Instead “buying” a community project is not an easy goal, since copyright assignments should be signed by each author. And, even if feasible, “buying” a community is risky bet, definitely a decision to be handled with care.

  • Carlo Daffara 9:54 am on August 6, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open source collaboration: non-source code open projects 

    In the context of the joint research work with Roberto, I would like to present a small update in the OpenTTT project. OpenTTT is a EU-funded project (SSA-030595 INN7) that aims at bridging the separate worlds of technology transfer and open source software (OSS), by introducing novel methodologies for helping companies in the take up of technology.

    As part of the project, we are collecting examples of non-source code projects where collaboration or open licensing are critical, and prepared a listing of such activities. Such listing will be extended in the next weeks, also including previous work like the “Open Source Gift Guide” or a list of non software open source goods.

    As already discussed a large portion of work in OSS projects goes into non-code aspects, and as such should be investigated probably with the same interest that OSS commands today.

    Technorati Tags: openttt, EU projects

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 2:51 pm on August 1, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source at Microsoft: some thoughts 

    Bill Hilf participation to OSCON 2007 raised up contrasting “sentiments”, as seen from the Tim O’Reilly post on, and from Groaklaw to Miguel de Icaza known voices from the Open Source blogosphere keep joining the conversation.

    Game of Life Game of Life by Demirtunc

    Hilf announced a new Microsoft’s Open Source portal, talking about Open Source from a Microsoft’s perspective, and that they were going to submit shared source licenses to OSI for the approval process.

    Reading Open Source @ Microsoft FAQ, it is pretty clear that the portal is not (yet) part of a new strategy, but a medium toward a goal: accomplishing heterogeneous customers’ (and partners) needs. Nonetheless, as far as Microsoft’s partners will be progressively embracing open source technologies, I bet Microsoft will turn this into a long term strategy. Since Microsoft’s business is mostly about infrastructural software, they might get advantage of the pervasive capillarity of Microsoft’s partners (750.000) to foster collaborative development over their proprietary technologies.

    Of a different sign, the decision to submit shared licenses to the OSI approval process: reading Rosenberg’s post at Port25 it is clear that Microsoft understands the impact of its move:

    As we look forward to the next three years, we already see the needs of our constituents driving our priorities for licensing, infrastructure, and process. Although open source at Microsoft and the OSI are two different animals, I would submit to you that both are at a point in their maturity where their constituencies need to become more involved to maintain growth. [..]

    So what about the flip side of the OSI becoming a membership organization? Could they really be voted out of existence or rendered ineffective? It doesn’t seem likely to me. Participation in the OSI and adherence to OSI licensing guidelines and Open Source definitions is entirely voluntary. If it isn’t serving the best interests of the community, the community will go elsewhere. Anyone considering an effort to “vote the organization into the ground” would surely realize that such heavy handedness would be self-defeating. That’s not to say that a new membership structure wouldn’t lead to change, but I believe that these changes would have to be the result of vigorous consensus building and that’s probably not a bad thing.

    Shall we see Microsoft joining the new OSI, in the very next future?

    I wish to thank Robin Good to ask me an opinion on the subject through his last invention, Robin Good World News, a web-tv channel collecting independent video news from around the world.

    Technorati Tags: Open Source Strategies, Commercial Open Source, Microsoft, robingoodtv

     

    • Alex Fletcher 7:17 pm on August 2, 2007 Permalink

      Roberto,

      More than simply provocative, your question is spot on. Microsoft really should consider joining the OSI Board of Directors as an observer. Apple and Google have already done so. A move like this would help them develop a clearer identity & strategy as a participant in the open source bazaar.

      Alex

    • Roberto Galoppini 10:59 pm on August 2, 2007 Permalink

      Alex, I totally agree with you. I claimed it was a ‘provocative’ question because, for a large part of the Open Source/Free Software world, it is. While unthinkable for many, I believe it is going to make sense, but it will take a while before <<another Microsoft, inside the Microsoft!>> 🙂 will eventually take over the company.

  • Roberto Galoppini 5:39 am on July 31, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Wiki: a chat with Ludovic Dubost, Xwiki CEO 

    Xwiki, a French company aimed to bring open source wiki to the enterprise, recently won the i-Expo Prize for Economic Intelligence at the i-Expo 2007 show in Paris for XWiki Watch.

    Ludovic Dubost Ludovic Dubost by rsepulveda

    I happened to know about Xwiki few moths ago reading that at ENST were having two internship proposals to work on XWiki, later I got in touch with Luis Arias and since then we occasionally exchange opinions and ideas about Open Source business models.
    Yesterday I had a conversation with Ludovic Dubost, Xwiki CEO, and we start speaking about how Wikis in general are getting more an more interest and attention, despite Knowledge Management and Collaboration tools are not on the food chain.

    Then I asked Ludovic about XWiki Watch.

    XWiki Watch concerns an activity which is well defined in the enterprise. monitoring what competitors do, how your company is perceived, how much press is received.. The concept is not new, it’s just Internet opened new opportunities.
    I mean, the Wiki is already perceived as a way to record knowledge about the competition, but only manually before XWiki Watch.

    Why should I use Xwiki Watch?

    With XWiki Watch you can mix retrieving info from the Internet, flag it, comment it but also write your own info, create wiki pages about the subjects you are watching and you can construct a knowledge base (wiki style) which will the connected to the internet info

    We are also planning to have delivery as a web site or in a blog, in addition to the delivery as mail, pdf, and RSS feed.

    The big differentiator versus RSS aggregators is the delivery tools, while the big differentiator versus existing Competitive intelligence tools is the collaborative aspects (flags/comments) and the Wiki integration.

    In XWiki Watch once the different users select the best news and comment them, and tags them, once you have done this you can construct a filter and ask for a specific delivery. So the filter could specify that you want only the flagged articles and specifying that you want them by email, or PDF, or on a web page, or a news RSS feed.

    Actually XWiki Watch doesn’t collect news from source that are not RSS enables, as tools like MySyndicaat (actually not Open Source but a great tool to do newsmastering), but they eventually could do some custom coding. After all their business model is a mix of Products specialists and Split OSS/commercial Product. FLOSSMETRICS taxonomy describes Product specialists companies that created (or maintains) a software project, and use a pure FLOSS license to distribute it, and the main revenues come from services like training and consulting. But XWiki it is also adopting the Split OSS/Commercial product business model, selling XWiki Enterprise edition, and I guess they will soon expand their offer in this respect.

    Can you tell me why Xwiki Watch won the prize?

    We were in a conference about Competitive Intelligence, and XWiki Watch won the innovation prize. The main reason for the prize was because of the ability for XWiki Watch to “democratize” Competitive intelligence. As a matter of most organization tend hire a person to do that and deliver info to the management or to the company, with XWiki Watch you can decide to organize things differently, like everybody in the company becomes a Watcher and everybody gets the most interesting info delivered. While actually if you look at it precisely you’ll see that everybody is doing watching on his space, it’s just not shared.

    While firms like Wikispaces are mainly working with on-line collaboration and open source industries, XWiki apparently is differentiating its offer going further than the wiki, targeting collaborative tools, project management and collaborative watching. In order to do that they are through partnerships with other players, like Nearbee, CHRONOPOLYS.

    Thank you Ludovic, and happy hacking!

    About XWiki.
    XWiki is an open source Wiki, and it is also an Enterprise wiki which allows the creation of applications within the Wiki interface. The languages that can be used are Velocity and Groovy, it is written in Java and it uses database like MySql or HSQLDB.

    Technorati Tags: XWiki, Xwiki Watch, LudovicDubost, Business models

     

Newer posts →

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