To Emphasize Openness

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Ken Hartness
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Free Software ◽  
Commercial Software ◽  
History Of Computing ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Professional Quality ◽  
Readable Form ◽  
History Of

Although open source software has existed, in a sense, throughout the history of computing, it has only more recently become recognized as a valid means of producing professional-quality software. Although primarily conceived as a zero-cost alternative to commercial software, open source software also supports customization and verification as a result of the software being available to all users in human-readable form. The availability of free software supports both researchers with limited budgets and those who seek to confirm the findings of researchers or use similar methods in related research.

scholarly journals A review of Open Source Software and Open Source Movement in Developing Countries

2011 ◽  
pp. 91-95
Author(s):  
Shyamalendu Kandar ◽  
Sourav Mondal ◽  
Palash Ray
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Free Software ◽  
Commercial Software ◽  
Large Organization ◽  
Software License ◽  
Indian Perspective

Open-source software abbreviated as OSS is computer software that is available with source code and is provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software. For the commercial software the source code and certain other rights are normally reserved for copyright holders,i.e. the company who developes the software. A group of people in a collaborative manner often developes the Open source software, not under the roof of a large organization. This strategy makes open source software cheap, reliable and modifiable if needed. In this context we shall discuss mainly the features of Open Source Software, differences of open source and free software and open source software movement in Indian perspective.

scholarly journals MINING EFFORT DATA FROM THE OSS REPOSITORY OF DEVELOPER’S BUG FIX ACTIVITY

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-128
Author(s):  
Syed Nadeem Ahsan ◽  
Muhammad Tanvir Afzal ◽  
Safdar Zaman ◽  
Christian Gütel ◽  
Franz Wotawa
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Effort Estimation ◽  
Estimation Model ◽  
Activity Data ◽  
Actual Time ◽  
History Of

During the evolution of any software, efforts are made to fix bugs or to add new features in software. In software engineering, previous history of effort data is required to build an effort estimation model, which estimates the cost and complexity of any software. Therefore, the role of effort data is indispensable to build state-of-the-art effort estimation models. Most of the Open Source Software does not maintain any effort related information. Consequently there is no state-of-the-art effort estimation model for Open Source Software, whereas most of the existing effort models are for commercial software. In this paper we present an approach to build an effort estimation model for Open Source Software. For this purpose we suggest to mine effort data from the history of the developer’s bug fix activities. Our approach determines the actual time spend to fix a bug, and considers it as an estimated effort. Initially, we use the developer’s bug-fix-activity data to construct the developer’s activity log-book. The log-book is used to store the actual time elapsed to fix a bug. Subsequently, the log-book information is used to mine the bug fix effort data. Furthermore, the developer’s bug fix activity data is used to define three different measures for the developer’s contribution or expertise level. Finally, we used the bug-fix-activity data to visualize the developer’s collaborations and the involved source files. In order to perform an experiment we selected the Mozilla open source project and downloaded 93,607 bug reports from the Mozilla project bug tracking system i.e., Bugzilla. We also downloaded the available CVS-log data from the Mozilla project repository. In this study we reveal that in case of Mozilla only 4.9% developers have been involved in fixing 71.5% of the reported bugs.

Open Source

2019 ◽  
pp. 1067-1075
Author(s):  
Heidi Lee Schnackenberg
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Operating Systems ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Free Software ◽  
Free Products

The phrase “open source” is not something often heard in everyday conversation. However, the idea of downloadable, free software, particularly mobile applications, or “apps,” has become quite commonplace. Individuals often download free products, grateful that they are available and will potentially work well, without thinking where they originate or why they even exist. Not so long ago, most things associated with computers available to the general population came at a cost and were available from only a few vendors. This is no longer the case thanks to the ever-increasing availability and popularity of open source software, operating systems, and applications.

An Open Source Primer

2011 ◽  
pp. 278-298
Author(s):  
Brian Still
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Future Trends ◽  
Intended Audience ◽  
Proprietary Software ◽  
Introductory Overview ◽  
Professional Environment ◽  
Technical Communicators ◽  
History Of

This chapter serves as an introductory overview of Open Source Software (OSS) and the Open Source movement. It is geared primarily for technical communicators. To provide a thorough overview, this chapter defines OSS, explains how OSS works in comparison to proprietary software, looks at the history of OSS, and examines OSS licensing types, applications in business, and overall strengths and weaknesses when compared to proprietary software. Lastly, it evaluates the practical potential of OSS as well as emerging and future trends relating to it. From this general but thorough overview the intended audience of technical communicators will gain the solid understanding needed to work successfully in an academic or professional environment where OSS continues to grow in popularity, spurring more organizations to rely on it or the Open Source ideas that have inspired and continue to drive its creation and growth.

Computer Assisted Active Learning System Development for The History of Civilization E-learning Courses by Using Free Open Source Software Platforms

2011 ◽  
pp. 203-221
Author(s):  
Dilek Karahoca ◽  
Adem Karahoca ◽  
Ilker Yengin ◽  
Huseyin Uzunboylu
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Engineering Faculty ◽  
Implementation Purpose ◽  
History Of ◽  
E Learning

This chapter explains the developmental reasons and design to implementation cycles of the Computer Assisted Active Learning System (CALS) for History of Civilization (HOC) courses at Engineering Faculty of Bahcesehir University. Implementation purpose of CALS is to develop set of tools in a systematic way to enhance students’ critical thinking abilities for HOC courses. Dynamic meta-cognitive maps, movies, flash cards and quiz tools were developed. In order to reduce implementation costs of CALS, open Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) standards and platforms were utilized in the development and implementation cycles. This study also investigates the importance of the e-learning platform usage in HOC courses in Engineering Faculty of Bahcesehir University to improve the level of students. Results indicate that the concept based meta-cognitive tool improves learning instead of students just memorizing the class material. Also, engineering students improved their positive attitude towards who wants to learn the history of civilization by using CALS. This study shows that software helps to change human behavior in the learning cycle. This chapter highlights the implications of successful development of FOSS for the CALS.

For Fun and Profit: A History of the Free and Open Source Software Revolution by Christopher J. Tozzi

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 655-657
Author(s):  
Mark Priestley
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
History Of

Open Source in Government

2011 ◽  
pp. 1287-1290 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Berry
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
General Public ◽  
Source Code ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Free Software ◽  
Software Projects ◽  
Software Companies ◽  
Develop Software ◽  
Software Distribution

Open source software (OSS) is computer software that has its underlying source code made available under a licence. This can allow developers and users to adapt and improve it (Raymond, 2001). Computer software can be broadly split into two development models: • Proprietary, or closed software, owned by a company or individual. Copies of the binary are made public; the source code is not usually made public. • Open-source software (OSS), where the source code is released with the binary. Users and developers can be licenced to use and modify the code, and to distribute any improvements they make. Both OSS and proprietary approaches allow companies to make a profit. Companies developing proprietary software make money by developing software and then selling licences to use the software. For example, Microsoft receives a payment for every copy of Windows sold with a personal computer. OSS companies make their money by providing services, such as advising clients on the GPL licence. The licencee can either charge a fee for this service or work free of charge. In practice, software companies often develop both types of software. OSS is developed by an ongoing, iterative process where people share the ideas expressed in the source code. The aim is that a large community of developers and users can contribute to the development of the code, check it for errors and bugs, and make the improved version available to others. Project management software is used to allow developers to keep track of the various versions. There are two main types of open-source licences (although there are many variants and subtypes developed by other companies): • Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) Licence: This permits a licencee to “close” a version (by withholding the most recent modifications to the source code) and sell it as a proprietary product; • GNU General Public Licence (GNU, GPL, or GPL): Under this licence, licencees may not “close” versions. The licencee may modify, copy, and redistribute any derivative version, under the same GPL licence. The licencee can either charge a fee for this service or work free of charge. Free software first evolved during the 1970s but in the 1990s forked into two movements, namely free software and open source (Berry, 2004). Richard Stallman, an American software developer who believes that sharing source code and ideas is fundamental to freedom of speech, developed a free version of the widely used Unix operating system. The resulting GNU program was released under a specially created General Public Licence (GNU, GPL). This was designed to ensure that the source code would remain openly available to all. It was not intended to prevent commercial usage or distribution (Stallman, 2002). This approach was christened free software. In this context, free meant that anyone could modify the software. However, the term “free” was often misunderstood to mean no cost. Hence, during the 1990s, Eric Raymond and others proposed that open-source software was coined as a less contentious and more business-friendly term. This has become widely accepted within the software and business communities; however there are still arguments about the most appropriate term to use (Moody, 2002). The OSMs are usually organised into a network of individuals who work collaboratively on the Internet, developing major software projects that sometimes rival commercial software but are always committed to the production of quality alternatives to those produced by commercial companies (Raymond, 2001; Williams, 2002). Groups and individuals develop software to meet their own and others’ needs in a highly decentralised way, likened to a Bazaar (Raymond, 2001). These groups often make substantive value claims to support their projects and foster an ethic of community, collaboration, deliberation, and intellectual freedom. In addition, it is argued by Lessig (1999) that the FLOSS community can offer an inspiration in their commitment to transparency in their products and their ability to open up governmental regulation and control through free/libre and open source code.

scholarly journals The CELLmicrocosmos Tools: A Small History of Java-Based Cell and Membrane Modelling Open Source Software Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bjorn Sommer
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Biological Networks ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Database Integration ◽  
Software Suite ◽  
Software Frameworks ◽  
Cell Components ◽  
History Of ◽  
Student Projects

AbstractFor more than one decade, CELLmicrocosmos tools are being developed. Here, we discus some of the technical and administrative hurdles to keep a software suite running so many years. The tools were being developed during a number of student projects and theses, whereas main developers refactored and maintained the code over the years. The focus of this publication is laid on two Java-based Open Source Software frameworks. Firstly, the CellExplorer with the PathwayIntegration combines the mesoscopic and the functional level by mapping biological networks onto cell components using database integration. Secondly, the MembraneEditor enables users to generate membranes of different lipid and protein compositions using the PDB format. Technicalities will be discussed as well as the historical development of these tools with a special focus on group-based development. In this way, university-associated developers of Integrative Bioinformatics applications should be inspired to go similar ways. All tools discussed in this publication can be downloaded and installed from https://www.CELLmicrocosmos.org.

scholarly journals Nine axes of merit for technosignature searches

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Z. Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
History Of

AbstractIt can be difficult to develop an effective and balanced search strategy in SETI, especially from a funding perspective, given the diverse methodologies and myriad orthogonal proposals for the best technosignatures. Here I propose a framework to compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of various proposed technosignatures based on nine ‘axes of merit’. This framework was first developed at the NASA Technosignatures Workshop in Houston in 2018 and published in that report. I give the definition and rationale behind the nine axes as well as the history of each axis in the SETI and technosignature literature. These axes are then applied to three classes of technosignature searches as an illustration of their use. An open-source software tool is available to allow technosignature researchers to make their own version of the figure.

scholarly journals USABILITY IN OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT: OPINIONS AND PRACTICE

2006 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Sieker Andreasen ◽  
Henrik Villemann Nielsen ◽  
Simon Ormholt Schrøder ◽  
Jan Stage
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Software Development ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Questionnaire Survey ◽  
Usability Evaluation ◽  
Software Developers ◽  
Commercial Software ◽  
Proprietary Software

Open Source Software (OSS) development has gained significant importance in the production of soft-ware products. Open Source Software developers have produced systems with a functionality that is competitive with similar proprietary software developed by commercial software organizations. Yet OSS is usually designed for and by power-users, and OSS products have been criticized for having little or no emphasis on usability. We have conducted an empirical study of the developers’ opinions about usability and the way usability engineering is practiced in a variety of OSS projects. The study included a questionnaire survey and a series of interviews, where we interviewed OSS contributors with both technical and usability backgrounds. Overall we found that OSS developers are interested in usability, but in practice it is not top priority, and OSS projects rarely employs systematic usability evaluation. Most of the efforts are based on common sense. Most developers have a very limited understanding of usability, and there is a lack of resources and evaluation methods fitting into the OSS paradigm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document