OW2 Community and more!

Open Source and its Communities
Cedric Thomas, CEO, OW2 Consortium

fOSSa Conference
Where Open Source meets Academia
Grenoble, November 16-17, 2009

www.ow2.org

The nature of open source

© OW2 Consortium 2009 www.ow2.org 3

0> The freedom to run the software for any
purpose

1> The freedom to study how the software works
and to adapt it to your needs

2> The freedom to redistribute copies of the
software

3> The freedom to improve the software and
distribute your improvements to the public


Apache server market share +- 50%

Image: http://www.chotocheeta.com/2009/03/06/apache-vs-litespeed-time-to-switch/


9

8

Open source software market >$8b
7

6

5
Billion US$

4

3

2

1

0
Ligne 21

Source: IDC
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090729005107&newsLang=en


VC investments >$3b

Since the first venture
investment in an open source
vendor in 1997:
$3.2bn has been raised
by 163 open source vendors
through 378 separate
funding deals.

Source: The 541 Group, 2008
http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/04/08/the-past-present-and-future-of-vc-investment-in-open-source/

And Red Hat Makes the S&P 500

NEW YORK, July 17 /PRNewswire/
-- Red Hat Inc. (NYSE: RHT)
will replace CIT Group Inc.
(NYSE: CIT) in the S&P 500
after the close of trading on
Friday, July 24.


Weblogic JOnAS
Websphere Jboss
Glassfish
OpenText Nuxeo
Vignette Alfresco
Documentum Drupal

Business Objects SpagoBI
InfoBuilder Jaspersoft
Cognos Penthao

MS Sharepoint Exo Platform
(Hummigbird) Liferay
(Plumtree) netNUKE
SAP Compiere
(Peoplesoft) OpenBravo
(JDE) Nexedit

(Sonic) PEtALS
Tibco Mule
IBM ServiceMix

IBM Bonita
Oracle JBPM
W4www.ow2.org
Shark 9
© OW2 Consortium 2009

Free Software Commercial Open Source


Still a Challenge for Others

Quality not guarantied
Code is provided "as is"
Perceived legal risk
OSS license are unproven
No responsibility
Code perceived anonymous
Investment risk
Small vendor companies
Lack of stability
Frequent releases
Lack of roadmap
No strategic "owner"
Lack of internal competence
Self-training not a policy

Image: http://ara.footblog.fr/615924/1-ER-TOUR-GROUPE-C-ITALIE-FRANCE/


The nature of open source communities


Open Source Communities

Huihoo

TopCased


"Tragedy of the Commons" by Garret Hardin, 1968

A resource
that no one
owns

http://lipietz.net/spip.php?article2344
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html


A resource No one can
that no one control its
owns usage



Each one
No one can has an
A resource control its incentive
that no one usage to use it
owns before
others do



Each one
No one can has an
A resource control its incentive Commons
that no one usage to use it is overused
owns before
others do



(Enclosure)
Each one
No one can has an Privatize
A resource control its incentive Commons or
that no one usage to use it is overused Nationalize
owns before
others do



(Enclosure)
Each one
than no one usage to use it is overused Nationalize
owns before
others do

Irrelevent: for knowledge
•Knowledge is non rival (we can both
be consuming it at the same time
•Knowledge is non exclusive (we can
both own it at the same time)
Enclosure would be a tragedy
for the knowledge commons

Analysis source: http://lipietz.net/spip.php?article2344



(Enclosure)
Each one
than no one usage to use it is overused Nationalize
owns before
others do

False: historically not right
•Commons were regulated...
•But had to be replaced because
it was a land expansive system
that consumed all land available




From the French Communs



From the French Communs

From the Latin munus ('gift' but also 'due')



Governance mechanism
- ownership
- authority
- customs
municipality



remuneration

Socialisation mechanism
- exchange
- redistribution
- reciprocity



reciprocity



100% of the contributions

10% of the members
provide 100% of the
contributions

100% of the members


Expectations

Technology infrastructure
Good code
Joining people alike Partners
Participation in large projects
Legal and Marketing guidance 100% of the contributions

Market credibility
Technology update
Architecture frameworks 10% of the members
provide 100% of the
contributions
Best practices
Increased corporate value 100% of the members
Technology independence
Access to international market
Lobbying

Expectations Contributions

Technology infrastructure
Fees, Financial support
Good code
Code contribution
Joining people alike Partners
Participation in large projects Activities leadership
Legal and Marketing guidance 100% of the contributions Specs, Bugs, Doc contribs.
Market credibility Success stories
Technology update
Experience feed-back
Architecture frameworks 10% of the members
provide 100% of the
contributions Marketing investment
Best practices
Increased corporate value Expertise
100% of the members
Technology independence Project leadership
Access to international market Members recruitement
Lobbying

Enter the Nobel Prizes:
How do you like your commons?

Hierarchies

Privatized
Oliver Williamson
Nobel Prize 2009
Markets

Nationalized Bureaucraties
William Ouchi
UCLA

Clans
Communitized
Elinor Ostrom
Nobel Prize 2009
Communities
That's us!!!

Photos Williamson, Ostrom: AFP
Photo Ouchi: http://www.vectorstudy.com/management_gurus/william_ouchi.htm


Communities

Elinor Ostrom
Rules for communities that work
Nobel Prize 2009
 Rules that clearly define who
gets what
 Good conflict resolution
methods in place
 Duties to be proportional to
benefits
 Monitoring and punishing
supervised by users
 Users allowed in setting and
modifying the rules


Lessons from the OW2 Experience =>

 You can control it
 Not a de facto model that
controls you
 It is documented
How good is your  It can be explained, even
open source to your parents
community model?
 It provides clear guidance
 To both current and
potential members
 It supports governance
 Helps mitigate conflicts
with a sense of direction


The nature of open source organizations


Diversified
Code Base

Developer-oriented Business-oriented

Specialized
Code Base


Budget

Budget: >50M$
(Google royalties)
Payroll: 120

Budget: 8M$
Payroll: 40+

Budget: 5M$
Payroll: 17

Budget: 0,5M$ Budget: 0,5M$
Payroll: 2 Payroll: 4- Personnel


The Typical OSS Organization
Value Proposal

 Technology services
 Technical infrastructure

 Community services
 Governance framework

 MarCom services
 Brand and identity


 24/7 support
Value Proposal First Layer:  Forge
Technical Infrastructure  Binary repository
 Developers tools
 SVN CVS
 Bug tracker
 Atlassian tools
 Code signature
facility
 Download
 Architecture
 Statistics
 Code IP checking
 FOSSology
 OSLC
 Black Duck
 Mailing lists
 Web site
 Wiki
© OW2 Consortium 2009 www.ow2.org
 etc. 38

Value Proposal Second Layer:
Governance System
 Principles  Documented in:
 Democratic  Bylaws
 Transparent  IPR Policy
 Open, etc.
 Membership
 Structure has entities for: Agreements
 Decision  Charters
 Operation  Etc.
 Guidance  Benefits
 Supports process:
 Predictability
 Decision process
 Consistency etc.
 Project life cycles


Value Proposal Third Layer:
Marketing and Communication
 Objective
 Build a brand
 Develop an identity
 Events
 Exhibitions
 Conferences
 Community meetings
 Communication
 Web site
 Press releases
 Interviews
 White papers
 Presentations
 Etc.
 Collateral
 Fact sheet
 Executive overview
 General prez
 Project datasheets
www.ow2.org
 Goodies, etc.
© OW2 Consortium 2009 40

OW2 and Academia


Community Driven

"Vocational OSS"
Leading OSS Projects
Academic Research
Publicly funded
Burden Sharing projects

JOTM Accessory code

Trials
Commercial
Open Source
"Lost Projects"

Market Driven


OW2 network of complementary
expertises

EUROPE CHINA
NORTH
AMERICA

LATIN
AMERICA


A Growing Academia Network
Peking University
Behang University
INRIA NUDT
GET Fraunhofer-FOKUS ISCAS
LIG Harbin U.
CNRS-IMAG GMRC
UJF Charles U. NJUPT
Telecom Inst.

Free University

CDAC

University of Fortaleza Plus Individual Members from 30 Universities
University of San Paolo in more than 10 countries


Academia Are Special to OW2

OW2 and Academia Special membership
converge in: conditions for
Academia:
 fostering innovation
 supporting open
source  Academia = €3000
 leveraging
international relations  Laboratories* = €1000

*small number of members (in the range of 10s)
© OW2 Consortium 2009 www.ow2.org

Academia

Why Join Universities, IT infrastructure R&D labs

ROI Elements Contribution Profile

 Access to business and  Staff and Lead a Project
Open Source expertise
 International relationship  Code contribution
with other academia  Technology Council
 Access to world-class participation
development teams
 Participation in publicly-
funded projects

 Industry relationship
 Networking opportunities
 Seed research

Research Organization

Why Join R&D organizations with leading IT research labs

ROI Elements Contribution Profile

 Partnership with world-class  Staff Project(s)/ Initiative(s)
development teams
 Participation in publicly-  Staff and Lead Local
funded projects Chapter
 Technology Council
 Increase technology transfer participation
 Platform for industry
relationship
 Real world experience
 Funding opportunities
 Enhanced visibility and
reputation


http://forge.ow2.org/
http://www.ow2.org
http://www.ow2.org.cn

www.ow2.org

OW2 Community and more!

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie OW2 Community and more!

Ähnlich wie OW2 Community and more! (20)

Mehr von fOSSa - Free Open Source Software Academia Conference

Mehr von fOSSa - Free Open Source Software Academia Conference (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

OW2 Community and more!