Recent Updates Page 95 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • 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 4:39 pm on September 3, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    EU Lobbying: ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Awards 2007 

    Entering their third edition, the ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Awards 2007 are now open for nominations. In 2005 the prize went to the bogus Campaign for Creativity, a front group used by large IT companies to lobby for software patents and intellectual property rights.

    This year you can nominate for two categories:

    1. The ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award for the lobbyist, company or lobby group that in 2007 has employed the most deceptive, misleading, or otherwise problematic lobbying tactics in their attempts to influence EU decision-making.
    2. The special ‘Worst EU Greenwash’ Award for the company whose advertising, PR and lobbying lingo is most at odds with the real environmental impacts of their core business activities.

    It’s up to you who will be eligible for these two awards! Until 15 September 2007 you can submit your nominations, see also some examples.

    For more information and the nomination form see the worstlobby website.

    About the Awards.

    The ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award is to be given to the lobbyist, company or lobby group that in 2007 has employed the most deceptive, misleading, or otherwise problematic lobbying tactics in their attempts to influence EU decision-making. This year’s event also includes a special ‘Worst EU Greenwash’ Award for the company whose advertising, PR and lobbying lingo is most at odds with the real environmental impacts of their core business activities.

    Technorati Tags: worst EU lobbying, software patents, EU

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 10:47 pm on August 31, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Internet Governance Forum: “Dialogue Forum on Internet Rights”, Rome 27-09-2007 

    The Italian Government in the framework of the Internet Governance Forum process, and in cooperation with the UN and the IGF Secretariat, Italy will organize a “Dialogue Forum on Internet Rights”, to be held in Rome on 27 September 2007.

    The conference will be open to any interested stakeholder. Registration form as draft agenda are available on-line.

    The organizers would like to encourage the submission of short written contributions that will then be summarized and introduced to the audience during the conference. Such contributions should focus on the two issues raised by the IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet Bill of Rights as working items for this year, and specifically:

    • Which are the appropriate forms and instruments to implement and better define human rights and duties in the Internet environment?
    • What areas and types of rights and duties, relevant to the Information Society, should be part of this work and of its results?

    Contributions should be submitted by September 20 through the conference web site. The contributions, as well as the results of the conference, will also be used as preparatory material for the workshop that the Dynamic Coalition will hold at the second IGF in Rio de Janeiro.

    Contacts.

    The Government of Brazil will host in Rio de Janeiro on 12 – 15 November 2007 the second Internet Governance Forum meeting. The IGF website – run by the IGF Secretariat – supports the United Nations Secretary-General in carrying out the mandate from the World Summit on the Information Society with regard to convening a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue – namely the Internet Governance Forum.

    Technorati Tags: Internet Governance Forum, Italy, Rome, Open Consultation

     

  • 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!

  • Carlo Daffara 1:51 pm on August 23, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Estimating the number of active and stable FLOSS projects 

    A recurring debate discussion among FLOSS-supporters and detractors is related to the estimation of the real number of active FLOSS projects. While it is easy to look at the main repository site (sourceforge.net) that boasts more than 100.000 projects, it is equally easy to look in more depth and realize that a significant number of those projects are really abandoned or have no significant development. How many active and stable projects are really out there?

    choicesToo many cereal choices by PartsNpieces

    For the purpose of obtaining some unbiased estimates in the context of the FLOSSMETRICS project, we performed a first search among the main repository sites and FLOSS announce portals; we also set a strict activity requirement, stately an activity index from 80 to 100% and at least a file release in the last 6 months. Of the overall 155959 projects, only 10656 (6.8%) are “active” (with a somehow very restrictive definition; a more relaxed release period of 1 year shows an active percentage of 9.2% or 14455 projects).

    However, while Sourceforge can rightly be considered the largest single repository, it is not the only potential source of projects; there are many other vertical repositories, among them BerliOS, Savannah, Gna! and many others, derived both from the original version of the Sourceforge code and many more based on a rewritten version called GForge. That gives a total of 23948 projects, to which (using a sampling of 100 projects from each) we have found a similar number of active projects (between 8% and 10%).

    The next step is the estimation of how many projects of the overall FLOSS landscape are hosted on those sites, and for performing this estimate we took the entire FreshMeat announce database, as processed by the FLOSSmole project and found that the projects that have an homepage in one of the repository sites are 23% of the total. This count is however biased by the fact that the probability of a project to be announced on FreshMeat is not equal for all projects; that is, english-based and oriented towards a large audience have a much higer probability to be listed. To take this into account, we performed a search for non-english based forges, and for software that is oriented towards a very specific area, using data from past IST projects like Spirit and AMOS.

    We have found that non-english projects are underrepresented in FreshMeat in a significant way, but as the overall “business-readiness” of those projects is unclear (as for example there may be no translations available, or be specific to a single country legal environment) we have ignored them. Vertical projects are also underrepresented, especially with regard to projects in scientific and technical areas, where the probability of being included is around 10 times lower compared to other kind of software. By using the results from Spirit, a sampling from project announcements in scientific mailing lists, and some repositories for the largest or more visible projects (like the CRAN archive, that hosts libraries and packages for the R language for statistics, that hosts 1195 projects) we have reached a lower bound estimate of around 12000 “vertical” and industry-specific projects. So, we have an overall lower bound estimate of around 195000 projects, of which we can estimate that 7% are active, leading to around 13000 active projects.

    Of those, we can estimate (using data from Slashdot, FreshMeat and the largest Gforge sites) that 36% fall in the “stable” or “mature” stage, leading to a total of around 5000 projects that can be considered suitable for an SME, that is with an active community, stable and with recent releases. It should be considered that this number is a lower bound, obtained with slightly severe assumptions; just enlarging the file release period from 6 months to one year nearly doubles the number of suitable projects. Also, this estimate does not try to assess the number of projects not listed in the announcement sites (even vertical application portals); this is a deliberate action, as it would be difficult to estimate the reliability of such a measure, and because the “findability” of a project and its probability of having a sustained community participation are lower if it is difficult to find information on the project in the first place; this means that the probability of such “out of the bounds” projects would probably be not a good opportunity for SME adoption in any case. By using a slightly more relaxed definition of “stability”, with an activity rating between 60% and 100% and at least a release in the last year, we obtain around 18000 stable and mature project from which to choose- not a bad result, after all.

    Technorati Tags: open source metrics, sourceforge, flossmetrics, flossmole

     

    • Bill Poser 6:57 am on August 27, 2007 Permalink

      The activity criterion used underestimates the number of projects that provide useful software. A project may not have had a recent release because it is complete and has no known bugs, or no bugs significant enough to fix. Of course, it would be difficult to take this into account without a lot more work since it would be necessary to examine the status of each project.

    • Carlo Daffara 7:47 am on August 28, 2007 Permalink

      As mentioned in the text, this is meant to provide a lower bound to the number of available, active and stable projects; as such, we have chosen a very strict definition of activity, and we used the project choice of “stability”, even considering that this lowers the number of suitable projects even more (there are many “beta” projects that are really stable). We already have found projects that are stable but not included in the count; an example is GNU make (that is stable, but having no new release in one year would not make it to the list).
      It must be considered, however, that even projects that are more or less finished (no more bugs) may need a small recompile or modification to adapt to changing platforms and environments; in this sense, stable project with no release in one year should be considered an exception and not the rule. Using a simple sampling approach, we estimate that those are less than 2% of our original count, and so we would not rise the package count in a significant way. Our main objective was to demonstrate that the lower bound of the number of both stable and maintained packages was significant, and I believe that that result was reached.
      Many thanks for your comment (and for reading the article thoroughly :-))

    • Nathan 9:24 pm on October 22, 2007 Permalink

      It would be very interesting to see that list of 18,000 stable, mature, active projects. Any plans to publish it?

    • Carlo Daffara 10:19 pm on October 29, 2007 Permalink

      For some of the forge sites that allows for data extraction, such a list can be obtained through the FLOSSMOLE data source. For those sites that have no search functionality, or that provide only part of their database in a searchable way, statistical methods were using based on a sampling approach, and in this case no list (just the numbers) can be obtained. It is important to understand that what we were looking at was a lower bound on the number of active and stable projects, not a “final” list.

    • Ali 4:43 pm on October 25, 2012 Permalink

      Hi,
      I am doing currently a research on open source firm. for statistical model i need number of projects registered to sourceforge year by year, is there any way to extract these information from sourceforge?

    • Roberto Galoppini 3:52 pm on October 27, 2012 Permalink

      Sure, look at the SourceForge Research Data at the Notre Dame University.

  • 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 3:00 pm on August 14, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open communities and lightweight consortia 

    The consortium is one of the oldest, and most practiced structures for coordinating resources of different companies towards a common goal, by creating a simple legal framework to coordinate and encourage a joint activity (for example promotion, development, management of rights). It is based on a simple concept: to be self-sustaining, a consortium must be capable of creating more than the simple sum of its parts.

    What can be said of FLOSS-based consortia? The underlying “raw material”, usually, is based on open source projects that are available to all without limitations, and so they cannot be a discriminating factor, contrary to other development consortia like Avalanche. In fact, even joint development like the Common Customer View are not improved or hindered by the fact that the participating companies are all in a single consortium or not. It is not difficult to see that if such an approach looks technically interesting, other non-members would probably add a compatible offering to their own project; on the other hand, two companies in the same market would be hard pressed to participate in the same consortium, as Roberto correctly said, because there would be no economic incentive to be part of a non-differentiating common ground.

    I suspect that development consortia can accept only a single company per vertical market, while representative consortia (that leverage a common effort to provide a simplified “certification mark”) can probably more effective in reducing the cost of promotion of FLOSS-based solutions. In this sense, I would suggest OSA to leverage more than simple interoperability, and try to promote a two-stage approach: an “inner circle” that provides the interoperability framework by leveraging paying customers, and a “subscriber circle” that leverages the shared resources (like IP clearing from Palamida, technical certification from SpikeSource, etc) to obtain a “seal of approval” that could be used as a marketing instrument.

    After all, if we look at OSA, we can see two different kind of customers: the ones that are buying services and products from the members, and FLOSS companies that may be part of the consortium in the future; it is in my opinion sensible to try to address both.

    Technorati Tags: open communities, OSA, open source consortia

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 11:09 am on August 14, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Source Links: 14-08-2007 

    An eye on the Open Solutions Alliance – Alex Fletcher sees a consistency in OSA’s stated approach, but as I wrote to Dominic Sartorio – OSA’s President – OS firms with “vertical” offering won’t apply if among OSA’s members someone else has already a similar offer. In my opinion OSA might better act on behalf of those companies delivering “horizontal” services – just like SpikeSource – much better than the “vertical” ones (those who take care of a product). The reason is that in horizontal services arena there is no “corporate player” yet, so OSA might well be the first mover.

    OSI Submission Update – Bill Hilf submitted Microsoft’s licenses (MS-PL and MS-CL) just before going on vacation.

    Building consumers products with open source – Ari Jaaksi tells Nokia’s approach to Open Source.

    Actuate Harnesses Open Source to advance Leadership in BI -  Dilbert’s boss wants to use Open Source just for everything, may be also for Business Intelligence? Let’s see if Actuate will eventually turn BIRT in a successful business case.

    China: Patent Moves Meets Standards Muscle – Jeff Kaplan reports that China is becoming a serious player in the IP world.

    Firefox is a Public Asset – Mitchell Baker essay about the Mozilla’s business models.

     

← Older posts

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