Mythrealities
2 likes619 views
The document debunks several myths surrounding open source software (OSS), highlighting its significant usage, innovation, and external contributions. It emphasizes that OSS constitutes a considerable portion of codebases, often offering higher innovation rates compared to proprietary software while providing substantial economic value. The document also illustrates common misconceptions regarding the necessity of creating new licenses, the ease of community building, and the belief that OSS alone can solve all software issues.
![“[non-code] outside contributions are
signicant. Open Cascade estimates that they
represent about 20 % of the value of the
software. Matra Datavision had to inject
approximately 2M€ per year to continue to
develop its tools. In 2000, the company limited
the costs to 1.2 million.” (Jullien, Clement-
Fontaine, Dalle “New Economic Models, New
Software Industry Economy”)
Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mythrealities-110929012450-phpapp02/85/Mythrealities-20-320.jpg)
![“[..] the aim of free software is not to enable a
healthy business on software but rather to
make it even impossible to make any
income on software as a commercial
produc t.” (Thomas Lutz, Microsoft
representative at Tunis WSIS)
“Do open source where there aren't
commercial alternatives ” (Tony Hey, MS
VP Research, Microsoft at
TransferSummit2011)
Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mythrealities-110929012450-phpapp02/85/Mythrealities-23-320.jpg)
![“Open-source software is deliberately
developed outside of market mechanisms... the
nonmarket coordination mechanism fails to
contribute to the creation of value in
development, as opposed to the commercial
software market. [It] does not generate profit,
income, jobs or taxes … In the end, the
developed software cannot be used to
generate profit.” (Kooths S., Lagenfurth M.
“Open Source-Software: An Economic
Assessment” University of Muenster, Muenster
Institute for Computational Economics)
Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mythrealities-110929012450-phpapp02/85/Mythrealities-24-320.jpg)
![“[Open Source] ... suppresses quality
competition between OS firms and restricts
their output much as an agreement to suppress
competition on quality would. .. We find that
the first-best solution in our model is to tax
OS firms and grant tax breaks to
[proprietar y sw] firms .” (Engelhardt,
Maurer, 2010 Goldman School of Public
Policy)
Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mythrealities-110929012450-phpapp02/85/Mythrealities-25-320.jpg)
Mythrealities
- 1. Open source: myths and realities Carlo Daffara European Working Group on Libre Software Conecta Research Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 2. Myth #1: open source is not widely used. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 3. How much Open Source is inside the average codebase? Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 4. ● Black Duck analysis of large code projects (avg. 700MB of code): 22% is OSS, up to 80% of new development is avoided through OSS ● On average, 30% of implemented functionalities is based on reused OSS code (Sojer M., Henkel J. “Code reuse in Open Source Software Development”) ● “sampling continues to find that between 30% and 70% of code submitted is .. in the form of OSS components and commercial libraries” (Veracode, “State of Software Security Report volume 3”, 2011) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 5. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 6. 35% of code created in the last 5 years is Open Source Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 7. What value does OSS reuse brings in? (Abts, Boehm, Bailey Clark “Empirical observations on COTS software integration effort based on the initial COCOTS calibration database”) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 8. Total OSS source adoption value: 41B€ Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 9. Myth #2: open source is not as good as proprietar y sw. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 10. “Figures suppor t the idea that FOSS solu tions are more innovative than proprietar y ones: indeed, in all the three dimensions, experts’ evaluations are higher for FOSS than for proprietary software. … FOSS software not only show different levels of innovativity, but, as far as, new to the world products are concerned, they are also shaped by different innovation processes: radical innovation in the FOSS vs. incremental innovation in proprietary field.” (Rossi, Lorenzi, “Innovativeness of Free/Open Source solutions”) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 11. "The growing rate, or the number of functions added, was greater in the open source projects than in the closed source projects. This indicates that the OSS approach may be able to provide more features over time than by using the closed source approach. (Paulson, Succi, Eberlein “An Empirical Study of Open Source and Closed Source Software Products”) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 12. (Mohagheghi, Conradi, Killi and Schwarz “An Empirical Study of Software Reuse vs. Defect- Density and Stability”) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 13. "Findings indicate that community Open Source applications show a slower growth of maintenance effort over time.” (Capra, Francalanci, Merlo “The Economics of Community Open Source Software Projects: An Empirical Analysis of Maintenance Effort”) “The fourth law of software evolution, implying constant incremental effort, might be violated (Koch “Evolution of Open Source Software Systems – A Large-Scale Investigation”) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 14. Deshpande, Riehle “The Total Growth of Open Source” Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 15. Source: Dirk Riehle, “The open source big bang” Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 16. Myth #3: external contribu tions are negligible. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 17. “While IBM initially contributed software that was valued at 40M$, external contributors to the project created software representing a value of roughly 1.7B$ over the examined period.” (Spaeth, Stuermer, von Krogh “Enabling knowledge creation through outsiders: towards a push model of open innovation”) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 18. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 19. Myth #4: code is the only wor thwile potential contribu tion. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 20. “[non-code] outside contributions are signicant. Open Cascade estimates that they represent about 20 % of the value of the software. Matra Datavision had to inject approximately 2M€ per year to continue to develop its tools. In 2000, the company limited the costs to 1.2 million.” (Jullien, Clement- Fontaine, Dalle “New Economic Models, New Software Industry Economy”) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 21. The economic value of Open Source Software
- 22. Myth #5: Open Source limits the exploitation possibilities. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 23. “[..] the aim of free software is not to enable a healthy business on software but rather to make it even impossible to make any income on software as a commercial produc t.” (Thomas Lutz, Microsoft representative at Tunis WSIS) “Do open source where there aren't commercial alternatives ” (Tony Hey, MS VP Research, Microsoft at TransferSummit2011) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 24. “Open-source software is deliberately developed outside of market mechanisms... the nonmarket coordination mechanism fails to contribute to the creation of value in development, as opposed to the commercial software market. [It] does not generate profit, income, jobs or taxes … In the end, the developed software cannot be used to generate profit.” (Kooths S., Lagenfurth M. “Open Source-Software: An Economic Assessment” University of Muenster, Muenster Institute for Computational Economics) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 25. “[Open Source] ... suppresses quality competition between OS firms and restricts their output much as an agreement to suppress competition on quality would. .. We find that the first-best solution in our model is to tax OS firms and grant tax breaks to [proprietar y sw] firms .” (Engelhardt, Maurer, 2010 Goldman School of Public Policy) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 26. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 27. Total value of OSS reuse per year: 116B€ Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 28. With proprietary software, 86% of SW spending goes outside of Europe-and reduces local company margins Ecosystem Revenues compared with MS revenues by partner type Product- Services- Retail Logistics Logistics-Oriented Oriented Oriented Value-Added Partner Partner (e.g., Large Microsoft Partner (e.g., Large Partner (e.g., Partner (e.g., (e.g., VAR) Retail Electronics Account Reseller) ISV, IHV) SI, Hoster) Store) $1 $4.09 $2.44 $2.30 $2.70 $2.93 1 24% 40.9% 43.5% 37% 34% Source: Partner Opportunity in the Microsoft Ecosystem, IDC 2011; analysis by Daffara Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 29. Revenue per employee rating (FLOSS firms vs. Industry average) Computer Equipment 182% Software consultancy and supply 427% Services (excl. software cons. and supply) 211% Manufacturing (excl. computer equip.) 136% Other 204% ALL: 221% Source: MERIT Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 30. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 31. OSS Vendor Business model Open Core Vendor example Zimbra Number of covered products single or few Economic advantage for the Reduction of R&D, reduced maintenance costs, visibility, vendor increased dissemination, external ecosystem of add-ons, self-segmentation of the market for the proprietary add-ons Economic advantage for the The adopter may opt for the open source edition if it is adopter deemed sufficient; for the proprietary part, reduction in cost may give better price/quality ratio Potential disadvantages of Difficult to estimate the right balance between open and the model closed parts, external groups may create substitutes for the proprietary parts Sale condition Need for the proprietary additions or need of support Freeriding protection license choice, segmentation on features External ecosystem potentially large, depending on the balance open/proprietary (more examples in the FP7 primer...) Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 32. Myth #6: I need to create my own license. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 33. Rank License % 1 GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 47.6% 2 GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1 9.1% 3 Artistic License (Perl) 9.1% 4 BSD License 2.0 6.2% 5 GNU General Public License (GPL) 3.0 6.2% 6 MIT License 4.6% 7 Apache License 2.0 4.3% 8 Code Project Open 1.02 License 2.9% 9 Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) 1.7% 10 Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1 1.2% 11 Common Public License (CPL) 0.5% 12 Eclipse Public License (EPL) 0.5% 13 GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 3.0 0.5% 14 zlib/libpng License 0.4% 15 Academic Free License 0.4% 16 Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) 0.3% 17 Open Software License (OSL) 0.3% 18 Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.0 0.3% 19 PHP License Version 3.0 0.2% 20 Ruby License 0.2% Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 34. Myth #7: Open Source is a silver bullet. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 35. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 36. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 37. Myth #8: It is easy to create a community. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 38. From: “Sustainability of Free/Libre Open Source Projects: A Longitudinal Study” Journal of the Association for Information Systems November 2010 Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 39. Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 40. “The software developed in the project is released under the GPL license; however, in order to obtain the login and password necessary to access the forge site, the interested parties need to send a signed document that confirm that the software will be used for research purpose only, that any public criticism is explicitly forbidden, and that any use of the software itself as a basis of a published article need to be first agreed with the project coordinator.” Internet of Services 2011 – FLOSS WG
- 41. Thanks! Carlo Daffara cdaffara@conecta.it http://carlodaffara.conecta.it