WHEN DOES COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ENHANCE THE PERFORMANCE OF OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE COMPANIES?

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
WOUTER STAM
Author(s):  
D. Berry

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.


Author(s):  
Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers

This chapter discusses the role of the project/product community in the open source product life cycle. It outlines how a community-driven approach affects not only the development process, but also (and more importantly) the marketing/sales process, the deployment, the operation, and in general the resulting software product. Participation in the community is essential for any organization using the product, leading to the concept of a community customer. Specific community participation guidelines are given to organizations and individuals who deploy and use open source software, further develop it, or offer lifetime services on the product.


First Monday ◽  
2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timo Pykalainen

Linux has received significant attention worldwide, but differences in its adoption across countries has gained less interest. This paper aims to fill this gap by investigating the proportion of Linux among SSL servers in the Internet. The findings of this research question earlier findings concerning the influence of culture on adoption of technology. Findings of this research could be useful for both proprietary and open source software companies. Likewise, by understanding the influence of culture on Linux adoption, OSS communities can adjust their activities to gain optimum international operations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 534-554
Author(s):  
Khaireddine Mouakhar ◽  
Albéric Tellier

Purpose Open Source software companies (OSSCs) are confronted with institutional pressures from Open Source software (OSS) communities. They must find an acceptable balance between the expectations of these communities and their own business model. However, there are still few studies that try to analyse the OSSC business models. The purpose of this paper is to highlight OSSC typical business models by using rich empirical data. Design/methodology/approach The methodology is based on a combination of quantitative analysis of a sample of 66 OSSCs and qualitative analysis of three typical situations resulting from that sample. Findings The quantitative study enables the authors to highlight three typical business models. The in-depth study of three typical cases enables the authors to specify these OSSC business models. The authors can distinguish four key dimensions: the relationship developed with the OSS communities, the strategic manoeuvres made, the key resources and competitive positioning. Research limitations/implications The results indicate that it is possible for firms to accommodate both profit and non-profit logics using different strategic manoeuvres to position themselves with regard to the Open Source institutional environment. Such accommodation requires the development of key resources and the adoption of suitable competitive positioning. Practical implications This study allows the authors to highlight two main practical contributions for OSSCs’ directors. First, the different manoeuvres identified may help them to ensure coherence between their strategic choices and the business model chosen. Second, the results can help OSSC founders identify value creation mechanisms more clearly by analysing four key variables. Originality/value This paper provides new insight about OSSCs business models. It aggregates four dimensions that provide a more “fine-grained” analysis of business models, while other studies often emphasise one dimension (usually the regime of appropriability).


2011 ◽  
pp. 1171-1176
Author(s):  
David Berry

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony I. Wasserman

AbstractThis paper describes the recent evolution of business strategies used by companies offering products and services based on free and open source software (FOSS). The primary focus is on companies that develop and release products under an open source license. The paper compares their practices with traditional proprietary software companies and with community-based open source projects, and identifies growing overlaps between the different kinds of software companies. Finally, the paper describes the likely impact of recent technology developments in mobile and cloud computing on open source software and related business.


Author(s):  
Marinette Savonnet ◽  
Eric Leclercq ◽  
Marie-Noëlle Terrasse ◽  
Thierry Grison ◽  
George Becker ◽  
...  

Queue ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 69-86
Author(s):  
Margo Seltzer ◽  
Mike Olson ◽  
Kirk McCusick

Kirk McKusick sat down with Margo Seltzer and Mike Olson to discuss the history of Berkeley DB, for which they won the ACM Software System Award in 2021. Kirk McKusick has spent his career as a BSD and FreeBSD developer. Margo Seltzer has spent her career as a professor of computer science and as an entrepreneur of database software companies. Mike Olson started his career as a software developer and later started and managed several open-source software companies. Berkeley DB is a production-quality, scalable, NoSQL, Open Source platform for embedded transactional data management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document