Open source



II BCA UML – Unit-V

OPEN SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES

Evolution

In the beginning, a difference between hardware and software did not exist. The user and programmer of a computer were one and the same. When the first commercial electronic computer was introduced by IBM in 1952, the machine was hard to maintain and expensive. Putting the price of the machine aside, it was the software that caused the problem when owning one of these computers. Then in 1952, a collaboration of all the owners of the computer got together and created a set of tools. The collaboration of people was in a group called PACT (The Project for the Advancement of Coding techniques). After passing this hurdle, in 1956, the Eisenhower administration decided to put restrictions on the types of sales AT&T could make. This did not stop the inventors from developing new ideas of how to bring the computer to the mass population. The next step was making the computer more affordable which slowly developed through different companies. Then they had to develop software that would host multiple users. MIT computation center developed one of the first systems, CTSS (Compatible Time-Sharing System). This laid the foundation for many more systems, and what we now call the Open Source Movement.

The Open Source Movement is branched from the free software movement which began in the late 80s with the launching of the GNU/Linux project by Richard Stallman. Stallman is regarded within the open source community as sharing a key role in the conceptualization of freely shared source code for software development. The term “free software” in the free software movement is meant to imply freedom of software exchange and modification. The term does not refer to any monetary freedom. Both the free software movement and the open source movement share this view of free exchange of programming code, and this is often why both of the movements are sometimes referenced in literature as part of the FOSS or “Free and Open Software” or FLOSS “Free/Libre Open Source” communities.

These movements share fundamental differences in the view on open software. The main, factionalizing difference between the groups is the relationship between open source and proprietary software. Often makers of proprietary software, such as Microsoft, may make efforts to support open source software to remain competitive. Members of the open source community are willing to coexist with the makers of proprietary software and feel that the issue of whether software is open source is a matter of practicality.

In contrast, members of the free software community maintain the vision that all software is a part of freedom of speech and that proprietary software is unethical and unjust. The free software movement openly champions this belief through talks that denounce proprietary software. As a whole the community refuses to support proprietary software. It also is suggested there are external motivations exist for these developers. One motivation is when a programmer fixes a bug or makes a program it benefits others in an open source environment. Another motivation is that a programmer can work on multiple projects that they find interesting and enjoyable. Programming in the open source world can also lead to commercial job offers or entrance into the venture capital community. These are just a few reasons why open source programmers continue to create and advance software.

While cognizant of the fact that both it and the open source movement share similarities in practical recommendations regarding open source, the free software movement fervently continues to distinguish themselves from the open source movement entirely. The free software movement maintains that it has fundamentally different attitudes towards the relationship between open source and proprietary software. The free software community does not view the open source community as their target grievance, however. Their target grievance is proprietary software itself.

Development of OST

The Three Waves of Open Source Development

In the next 20 years, it will be nearly impossible to develop large-scale software or platforms without using open source software. The genie is out of the bottle, and all of the most significant digital business and innovation are happening in open source projects. Not surprisingly, with the adoption of open source, the way in which that software is being developed has changed over time as well. A macro-trend uncovered in this year’s Future of Open Source Survey seems to indicate the rise of a third wave of open source development.

1 The Grassroots Came First: Community-Driven Development

The first wave of open source development was overwhelmingly community-driven. If you look back on the earliest open source (and “free software” projects), it was primarily communities of developers collaborating together as individuals to build extraordinary software as a collective. This brought us amazing innovation and helped fuel alternative operating systems and the explosion of the early Internet.

2 Monetization Brings Open Source Breadth: Commercially-Driven Development

With the rising awareness and acceptance of open source, the next wave of development came heavily on the back of commercial entities. Technology companies working in small, focused teams developed enterprise software tools. They decided to make their code open source not solely due to a belief in the principles of freedom and innovation, but also because open source gave them a competitive lever against proprietary software companies as well as a strong marketing lever of “try before you buy” (or even more powerfully, build your business around our software and then come to us for support and services).

Over the last 10 years, commercially developed open source has risen to a prominent place among open source projects, with even the largest technology companies either embracing the model or even choosing to open source previously proprietary technology.

3 Open Source as the Standard: Customer-Driven Development

What we’re starting to see now, however, is a whole new generation of customer-driven open source development. Non-technology companies from large media companies to retailers, and even seemingly proprietary stalwarts like Pharma and Financial Services are getting much more involved in open source. They are doing so as they see open source itself as the competitive advantage. They want to help shape the direction of open source projects, to accelerate their projects by tapping into the shared innovation model, and to attract the best technical talent by being a visible part of the future of software. It’s no longer the individual developer hacking away over the weekend on a pet open source project, or an individual tech company trying to gain financial benefit from being open and transparent; now more traditional organizations have embraced that technology is a critical part of what they do and so they want to actively participate in open source in order to reap the benefits.

NGINX has a number of enterprise customers for which technology is not core to what they do, but they are still aggressively contributing to projects. These companies realize it’s to their long-term benefit to actively pursue participation in open source communities.

As this emerging customer-driven development trend continues to grow, we’ll see an evolution in the commercial model around open source. When open source development was community-driven, the business model was mostly built around support and services. Then, the commercial model became focused on dual licenses, PaaS and SaaS deployments, and add-on services. This next wave will likely introduce the potential for financial sponsorship and commercial stewardship of open source projects as well. Increasingly, we’ll see large companies not just investing in open source financially, but also contributing substantial brainpower and other corporate resources to the open source projects most important to their businesses. The most exciting times are still clearly ahead for open source.

Contemporary Technologies

Using Contemporary Technology Tools to Improve the Effectiveness of Teacher Educators in Special Education.

On-going developments in educational technology, including web-based instruction, streaming video, podcasting, video-conferencing, and the use of wikis and blogs to create learning communities, have substantial impact on distance education and preparation of special educators

In rural communities. These developments can be overwhelming, however, for teacher educators reluctant to break away from traditional methods. Rather than lamenting the burden of ever-changing technology, the authors highlight technology tools that make the efforts of teacher educators in special education more effective, looking at the positive elements of technology in teaching in higher education and offering a proactive perspective on technology integration.

Various examples of computer-related technology exist that have become routine additions to contemporary education practice. Some examples include the use of

• PowerPoint presentations;

• Video tapes and DVDs to show visual examples of subject matter being studied;

• Computer-based instruction (computer software) wherein students can practice basic skills

Or develop problem solving skills;

• Online or web-based learning which enables students to view web modules online and

Complete activities to facilitate learning from any location without the presence of the

Instructor;

• streaming video/audio which allows students to view video or camera feeds of lectures or

Anything else than can be filmed either live or on demand on the World Wide Web;

• Wikis as an instrument to enhance a learning community by giving students the capability

To edit information;

• Blogs as a tool to create interactive learning communities.

Applications of Blogs to Teacher

The use of many of the tools and programs education and Special Education discussed

Also create a flexible learning environment.

Using a site such as Edublogs., educators can create providing the learner the opportunity to decide when websites to host blogs and other web pages. According and where they learn, as well as the pace at which they to the site, Edublogs can be used to share lesson plans, learn, also appeals the learner's strengths. We can use incorporate multimedia, create a fully functioning the tools with which students are most familiar and website, host online discussions, and more. A sample comfortable to deliver content and assess their application could be to create a blog about a current

Understanding.

Events issue in education, for example: "Is NCEB Today's teacher educators are teaching a new type of helping or hurting students receiving exceptional learner.

While adapting to the learning needs of "digital education services?" To complete the assignment,

Naves," faculty also face the daundng task of keeping students will up with skill sets needed to teach with increasingly

1. Create an Edublogs account at h t t p: / / diverse delivery options. Maximizing the use of available media and offering students the opportunity to express

2. Research the NCEB and the effect on student’s information in a variety of ways may be key in keeping with excepdonalides.

3. Write a blog about the issue. Based on the information researched, state what you believe

And back it up with the research.

4. Include a multimedia clip to illustrate what you've found.

5. Include a discussion question for people to respond to.

6. E-mail your blog address to the class.

7. Comment on at least one other student's blog.

For this assignment, each student has the opportunity to research a topic of importance, critically reflect and post their findings, and critically reflect and comment on the findings of others.

The development of engaging and effective lessons for today's students involves appealing to their technological strengths. Focusing on multi-media components and virtual interactivity will provide the learner an opportunity to connect to the material in a way that is more familiar and natural than traditional means. The ability of teacher educators to be proficient with technology and develop a wide range of skills in order to reach today's learners is essential.

The use of many of the tools and programs Education and Special Education Discussed also create a flexible learning environment. Using a site such as Edublogs., educators can create providing the learner the opportunity to decide when websites to host blogs and other web pages. According and where they learn, as well as the pace at which they to the site, Edublogs can be used to share lesson plans, learn, also appeals the learner's strengths. We can use incorporate multimedia, create a fully functioning the tools with which students are most familiar and website, host online discussions, and more. A sample comfortable to deliver content and assess their application could be to create a blog about a current understanding.

Factors Leading to its Growth

The Growth of Open Source

Open source software is having a major impact on the software industry and its production processes. Many software products today contain at least some open source software components. Some commercial products are completely open source software. In some markets, for example, web servers, open source software hold a dominant market share.

Open source software today has a strong presence in industry and government. Walli et al. observe: “Organizations are saving millions of dollars on IT by using open source software. In 2004, open source software saved large companies (with annual revenue of over $1 billion) an average of $3.3 million. Medium-sized companies (between $50 million and $1 billion in annual revenue) saved an average $1.1 million. Firms with revenues under $50 million saved an average $520,000.”

Commercially, the significance and growth of open source is measured in terms of revenue generated from it. Lawton and Notarfonzo state that packaged open source applications generated revenues of $1.8 billion in 2006 [9]. The software division of the Software & Information Industry Association estimates that total packaged software revenues were $235 billion in 2006. Thus, open source revenue, while still small compared to the overall market (~0.7%) is not trivial any longer.

However, open source software today is part of many proprietary (closed) source products, and measuring its growth solely by packaged software revenue is likely to underestimate its size and growth by a wide margin. To measure the growth of open source we need to look at the total growth of open source projects and their source code.

Several studies have been undertaken to measure the growth and evolution of individual open source software projects. Most of these studies are exemplary, focusing on a few selected projects only. The exception is Koch’s work, which uses a large sample (>4000 projects) to determine overall growth patterns in open source projects, concluding that polynomial growth patterns provide good models for these projects. Such work is mostly motivated by trying to understand how individual open source projects grow and evolve.

The work presented in this paper, in contrast, analyzes the overall growth of open source, aggregating data from more than 5000 active and popular open source projects to determine the total growth of source code and number of projects. Assuming a positive correlation between work spent on open source, its total growth in terms of code and number of projects, and the revenue generated from it, understanding the overall growth of open source will give us a better indication of how significant a role open source will play in the future.

Understanding overall open source growth helps more easily answer questions about, for example, future product structures (how much code of an application is likely to be open source code?), labour economics (how much and which open source skills does a company need?), and revenue (what percentage of the software market’s revenue will come from open source?).

The work presented in this paper shows that the total amount of open source code and the total number of projects is growing exponentially. Assuming a base of 0.7% of the market’s revenue, exponential growth is a strong indicator that open source will be of significantly increasing Commercial importance. The remainder of this paper discusses our study and validates the hypothesis of exponential growth of open source.

4 Open Source Initiative (OSI)

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is an organization dedicated to promoting open-source software.

The organization was founded in February 1998 by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond, part of a group inspired by the Netscape Communications Corporation publishing the source code for its flagship Netscape Communicator product. Later, in August 1998, the organization added a board of directors.

Raymond was president from its founding until February 2005, followed briefly by Russ Nelson and then Michael Tiemann. In May 2012, the new board elected Simon Phipps as president and in May 2015 Allison Randal was elected as president when Phipps stepped down in preparation for the 2016 end of his Board term.

History

As a campaign of sorts, "open source" was launched in 1998 by Jon "maddog" Hall, Larry Augustin, Eric S. Raymond, Bruce Perens, and others.

The group adopted the Open Source Definition for open-source software, based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines. They also established the Open Source Initiative (OSI) as a steward organization for the movement. However, they were unsuccessful in their attempt to secure a trademark for 'open source' to control the use of the term. In 2008, in an apparent effort to reform governance of the organization, the OSI Board invited 50 individuals to join a "Charter Members" group; by 26 July 2008, 42 of the original invitees had accepted the invitations. The full membership of the Charter Members has never been publicly revealed, and the Charter Members group communicated by way of a closed-subscription mailing list, "osi-discuss", with non-public archives. Public information indicates that the group included Bradley M. Kuhn, Karl Fogel, Jim Blandy, Chamindra da Silva, Lawrence Rosen, and David Ascher. Then-OSI Board member Danese Cooper was the principal moderator of osi-discuss. Kuhn later recollected that the Charter Membership was a "brouhaha (bordering on a flame fest)" and took no action.

In 2009, the OSI was temporarily suspended from operation as a California corporation, apparently in response to a complaint concerning tax paperwork from earlier years. clarification needed Its current status is "Active".

In 2012, under the leadership of OSI director and then-president Simon Phipps, the OSI began transitioning towards a membership-based governance structure. The OSI initiated an Affiliate Membership program for "government-recognized non-profit charitable and not-for-profit industry associations and academic institutions anywhere in the world". Subsequently, the OSI announced an Individual Membership program and listed a number of Corporate Sponsors.

On November 8, 2013, OSI appointed Patrick Masson as its General Manager.

3 Relationship with the free software movement

Both the modern free software movement (launched by Richard Stallman in the early 1980s) and the Open Source Initiative were born from a common history of Unix, Internet free software, and the hacker culture, but their basic goals and philosophy differ. The Open Source Initiative chose the term "open source," in founding member Michael Tiemann's words, to "dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with 'free software'" and instead promote open source ideas on "pragmatic, business-case grounds."

As early as 1999, OSI co-founder Perens objected to the "schism" that was developing between supporters of Stallman's Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the OSI because of their disparate approaches. (Perens had hoped the OSI would merely serve as an "introduction" to FSF principles for "non-hackers.") Stallman has sharply criticized the OSI for its pragmatic focus and for ignoring what he considers the central "ethical imperative" and emphasis on "freedom" underlying free software as he defines it. Nevertheless, Stallman has described his free software movement and the Open Source Initiative as separate camps within the same broad free-software community and acknowledged that despite philosophical differences, proponents of open source and free software "often work together on practical projects."

Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project

The Free Software Foundation

As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became involved in the GNU project, and we decided that it was time to seek funding once again. So in 1985 we created the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a tax-exempt charity for free software development. The FSF also took over the Emacs tape distribution business; later it extended this by adding other free software (both GNU and non-GNU) to the tape, and by selling free manuals as well.

Most of the FSF's income used to come from sales of copies of free software and of other related services (CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals, all with the freedom to redistribute and modify), and Deluxe Distributions (distributions for which we built the whole collection of software for the customer's choice of platform). Today the FSF still sells manuals and other gear, but it gets the bulk of its funding from members' dues. You can join the FSF at .

Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a number of GNU software packages. Two notable ones are the C library and the shell. The GNU C library is what every program running on a GNU/Linux system uses to communicate with Linux. It was developed by a member of the Free Software Foundation staff, Roland McGrath. The shell used on most GNU/Linux systems is BASH, the Bourne Again Shell (1), which was developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.

We funded development of these programs because the GNU Project was not just about tools or a development environment. Our goal was a complete operating system, and these programs were needed for that goal. “Bourne Again Shell” is a play on the name “Bourne Shell”, which was the usual shell on Unix.

4 The GNU Project

Richard Stallman Originally published in the book Open Sources. Richard Stallman was never a supporter of “open source”, but contributed this article so that the ideas of the free software movement would not be entirely absent from that book.

Why it is even more important than ever insist that the software we use be free.

1 The first software-sharing community

When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971, I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many years. Sharing of software was not limited to our particular community; it is as old as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as old as cooking. But we did it more than most.

The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called ITS (the Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had designed and written in assembler language for the Digital PDP-10, one of the large computers of the era. As a member of this community, an AI Lab staff system hacker, my job was to improve this system.

We did not call our software “free software”, because that term did not yet exist; but that is what it was. Whenever people from another university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we gladly let them. If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and interesting program, you could always ask to see the source code, so that you could read it, change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make a new program.

The use of “hacker” to mean “security breaker” is a confusion on the part of the mass media. We hackers refuse to recognize that meaning, and continue using the word to mean someone who loves to program, someone who enjoys playful cleverness, or the combination of the two. See my article, On Hacking.

2 The collapse of the community

The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital discontinued the PDP-10 series. Its architecture, elegant and powerful in the 60s, could not extend naturally to the larger address spaces that were becoming feasible in the 80s. This meant that nearly all of the programs composing ITS were obsolete.

The AI Lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before. In 1981, the spin-off company Symbolic had hired away nearly all of the hackers from the AI Lab, and the depopulated community was unable to maintain itself. (The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in its prime.) When the AI Lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its administrators decided to use Digital's nonfree timesharing system instead of ITS.

The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you had to sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy.

This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not to help your neighbour. A cooperating community was forbidden. The rule made by the owners of proprietary software was, “If you share with your neighbour, you are a pirate. If you want any changes, beg us to make them.”

The idea that the proprietary software social system—the system that says you are not allowed to share or change software—is antisocial, that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise to some readers. But what else could we say about a system based on dividing the public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the idea surprising may have taken the proprietary software social system as a given or judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software businesses. Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince people that there is only one way to look at the issue.

When software publishers talk about “enforcing” their “rights” or “stopping piracy”, what they actually say is secondary. The real message of these statements is in the unstated assumptions they take for granted, which the public is asked to accept without examination. Let's therefore examine them.

One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable natural right to own software and thus have power over all its users. (If this were a natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to the public, we could not object.) Interestingly, the US Constitution and legal tradition reject this view; copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users' natural right to copy.

Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about software is what jobs it allows you to do—that we computer users should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have.

A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or would never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not offer a company power over the users of the program. This assumption may have seemed plausible, before the free software movement demonstrated that we can make plenty of useful software without putting chains on it.

If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues based on ordinary commonsense morality while placing the users first, we arrive at very different conclusions. Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.

Contexts of OST (India & International)

The Government of India (GOI) has adopted a comprehensive and supportive open source policy. It builds on their earlier efforts to adopt open standards for procurement.

As we've seen in other regions, the adoption of such policies often brings out concerns from some quarters who want to spread 'fear and doubt' about the policy. So, what are the facts about the policy, and how does it fit into India's broader economic development strategy?

3 From 'purchaser' to 'innovator'

In my work with governments around the world, I've observed that many governments are increasing their engagement on open source to help them promote a culture of innovation that they need in order to serve their citizens today and in the years to come.

While government procurement regimes often lag behind those in the commercial sector in terms of adaptability and efficiency, I see a growing awareness among not only the IT experts but also the leadership of the public sector that the old way of acquiring software has to change and that lock-in is no longer acceptable. The use of technology, including open source software, is moving out of the sphere of simply 'acquiring a product' to 'investing in innovation'.

As a result, the emphasis on open source by the GOI is a reflection of this change of focus. IT is less about acquiring intellectual property via a license, and more about widely distributing the tools and adding value on top of it. This paradigm shift has enabled decision-makers to go from thinking of small 'procurement' windows to viewing open source from a broader vantage point that highlights its broad-based benefits to an economy, jobs, and innovation, and in the government itself.

In India, the policy coincides with another broad initiative, Digital India. By bringing together various functions and efforts, the program seeks to prepare India for a knowledge future. It is centered on three key areas:

• Digital Infrastructure as a Utility to Every Citizen

• Governance & Services on Demand

• Digital Empowerment of Citizens

4 Citizen engagement

Those objectives are consistent with one of the other exciting trends I’m seeing: governments using open source software, as a key component of 'digital agenda' initiatives that include open standards and open data policies, to enhance civic engagement.

Whether through sponsoring 'app challenges' or 'hackathons' to generate excitement around new ways of using government services and information, to modernizing online web-based services, and governments actually 'open sourcing' the software, there is strong evidence that open source is indeed driving transparency and better engagement with citizens.

One example is the work of the US White House to connect citizens (and citizen developers) to government (and government data). The US "digital agenda" is carrying out the President’s goal of using technology to make a real difference in individuals’ daily lives. Notably, in carrying out its effort, the White House is committed to "using and contributing back to open source software as a way of making it easier for the government to share data, improve tools and services, and return value to taxpayers.

Free and Open Source Software in South Africa

Johnston and Seymour (2005) attempted to identify the factors that influence and limit the usage and intended usage of FOSS within SA. Organizations in both the private and public sectors were examined ranging from large listed companies to small non-government organizations (NGOs). Research has shown that of the TOE technological factors, cost (though important) is not the main reason for adopting FOSS in SA. The main reasons identified were performance, stability, and control (Mosoval

et al., 2006).Since 2001, the SA Government strategically expressed strong intentions to use FOSS, given its focus on local skills development, foreign exchange exposure, national security, and dependency, thus shaping the TOE environment context.

TOE framework Organization Human and financial, innovativeness, competitiveness Environment Industry, competition, suppliers, customers Technology Cost, reliability, complexity, compatibility Open source adoption.

Government adopted policy recommendations regarding FOSS in 2003 (Policy on Free and Open Source Software use for South African Government, 2006). But on the TO Eorganizational level, limited FOSS usage was found within government (Johnston and Seymour, 2005). Political influences and risks associated with the scale and complexity of large government organizations nullify their FOSS strategic usage intent. Decision makers cited the need to leverage off their existing skill base and infrastructure, political pressure to eliminate additional risk by not going through unchartered territory, as reasons for remaining tied to proprietary software (Johnston and Seymour, 2005). There are few perceived incentives to move to FOSS. Two research approaches were used, the first was done using a survey instrument, and over 1,700 questionnaires were received from SMEs, and NGOs.

A qualitative approach was then adopted, using in-depth interviews with users and providers of both the proprietary and FOSS software (Johnston and Seymour, 2005). Decision makers who had either recently gone through the decision to implement or not to implement FOSS, or were considering implementing FOSS were interviewed. Three organizational groups were selected, public, large private corporate enterprises, and SMEs. It was found that South African SMEs are often in favour of purchasing proprietary software rather than using FOSS, as they seek immediate resolution of technological issues, brand equity is important (tried and tested), and they fear the risk of unknown. Most SMEs and NGOs are not fully aware of all the options open to them regarding software (specifically FOSS), few have clear ICT goals, and many do not see the benefits of ICT

Organizations size (or lack thereof) can create barriers to FOSS adoption for SMEs, as some of the benefits of FOSS can only be realized by developing internal expertise which may not be feasible for smaller firms in a survey of key issues for chief information officers of listed companies in SA, FOSS did not feature at all. Surprisingly, people development and skills development were also not listed as key issues, this in a developing country with a skills shortage and given the government’s focus on skills development. Harris (2008) reported that the shortage of ICT skills could threaten business growth in SA. The number of positions advertised in the South African Sunday Times requiring ICT skills rose from 238 in the first quarter of 2007 to 3,485 in the last quarter of 2007.If software procurement was predominantly cost driven (technology) or driven by kills development (organizational), FOSS would be the first choice for many organizations, but this is not the case (Mosoval et al., 2006). Insights for the possible explanations to this low adoption rate might be obtained from the environmental problems faced by developing countries while adopting FOSS.

In essence, these major problems are not technical or organizational, but mostly political or environmental (TOE). The concept of “free software” is not easily understood by people (including politicians) and it requires some explanations before advantages are apparen. Political influences and risks associated with the scale and complexity of large government organizations nullify their FOSS strategic usage intent. Governments and organizations in developing countries remain tied to proprietary software largely due to a conservative approach to risk. Organizations in developing countries find it less risky to stick to proprietary products as opposed to building/customizing FOSS applications (Camera and Fonseca, 2007). Organizations with an intricate ICT environment steer away from additional risk or complexities.

[pic][pic]Applications of Open Source

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

5 List of the best open source software applications

[pic]There’s nothing new about the term “open source” as it relates to software – it’s been around for more than a decade now. However, as being a tad tech-suave has settled into the collective consciousness, the reliance on commercial software solutions is dropping daily.

Whereas the connotation initially was that open source projects were buggy and unstable (I mean, how could anything being worked on for free not be?), and commercial software was solid and trusted – over the last 10 years these ideas have changed – if not virtually reversed.

Though there is an “official definition” of what open source is; simply put, open source is any software or webware which has been released with its code available for review, modification, adaptation and improvement. Oh yeah, and it’s usually free.

Here is a list of what I feel to be the best or most notable open source applications:

1

2 Browsers / Mail / Office Suite

Mozilla Firefox: Mozilla Firefox is a free and open source web browser, which is the second-most popular browser in current use worldwide, after Internet Explorer. Firefox is a standards-compliant browser which uses the Gecko layout engine. It includes tabbed browsing, a spell checker, incremental find, live bookmarking, a download manager, and an integrated search system. Its strongest feature, however, is that it can be infinitely expanded through countless additional add-ons created by third-party developers.

: 3 is the leading open-source office software suite for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, graphics, databases and more. It is available in many languages and works on all common computers. It stores all your data in an international open standard format and can also read and write files from other common office software packages (as of v3, it can even read MS Office’s Docx format). It can be downloaded and used completely free of charge for any purpose.

Mozilla Thunderbird: Like it’s browser cousin, Firefox, Thunderbird is free and open source. A full featured e-mail client, it easily replaces Microsoft’s Outlook Express, and through the use of add-ons, is quickly gaining ground on the power of MS Office’s Outlook

Google Chrome: Though quite new, Google’s open source entrance into the Internet browser market shows quite a bit of potential. It is lacking some of the slick add-ons that Firefox features, but its isolated sandbox and ground-up modern build make it a fast and secure alternative that is destined for great things down the road.

3

4 Multimedia / Audio / Video

Miro: Miro is a free open source application for watching channels of internet video (aka video podcasts and video rss). Miro is easy to use and offers full-screen viewing abilities. You simply “subscribe” to the video (or audio) podcast you want to watch and Miro will then automatically download the latest videos for skipless and stutter-free viewing. You can tell Miro to automatically download the newest videos, only download the ones you wish, and if you’re short on hard drive space you can specify how long the downloaded videos stay on your system before being cleaned up.

VLC Media Player: VLC is a portable multimedia player, encoder, and streamer supporting many audio and video codecs and file formats as well as DVDs, VCDs, and various streaming protocols – basically it can pretty much play whatever you throw at it. Additionally, it is able to stream over networks and to transcode multimedia files and save them into various different formats. It is one of the most platform-independent players available, with versions for BeOS, Syllable, BSD, Linux, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, MorphOS and Solaris, and is widely used with over 100 million downloads.

Audacity: Audacity is a free, easy-to-use cross-platform audio editor and recorder. You can use Audacity to record live audio; convert tapes and records into digital recordings or CDs; edit Ogg Vorbis, MP3, WAV or AIFF sound files; cut, copy, splice or mix sounds together; change the speed or pitch of a recording; and more. With the proliferation of home recording and podcasting, Audacity is a program that should be in everyone’s toolbox.

Songbird: Though still under “active” development, Songbird is a promising open source music player. Features included (or to be included) are library management, multi-language support, media importing, album art display, Meta data management, customizable UI and automatic updates. It’s not quite there yet, but it’s a project to be watched.

MediaCoder: Media Coder is a free universal batch media transcoder, which integrates most popular audio/video codecs and tools into an all-in-one solution. With a flexible and extendable architecture, new codecs and tools are added in constantly as well as supports for new devices. Media Coder intends to be the Swiss army knife for media transcoding.

HandBrake: Handbrake is an open-source, GPL-licensed, multiplatform, multithreaded DVD to MPEG-4 converter. Basically, it’ll rip any DVD (or DVD-like) source into an MP4, MKV, AVI or OGM. It also supports the ripping of subtitles (burned into the video).

5 Graphics / Design

GIMP: GIMP is an acronym for GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is a freely distributed program that can be used as a simple paint program, an expert quality photo retouching program, an online batch processing system, a mass production image renderer, an image format converter, etc. Like its commercial counter-part, Photoshop, it is designed to be augmented with plug-ins and extensions to do just about anything.

Inkscape: An Open Source vector graphics editor, with capabilities similar to Illustrator, CorelDraw, or Xara X, using the W3C standard Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) file format. Inkscape supports many advanced SVG features (markers, clones, alpha blending, etc.), and its streamlined interface makes it easy to edit nodes, perform complex path operations, trace bitmaps and much more.

: An alternative to GIMP – or commercial apps such as Adobe Photoshop, Corel Paint Shop Pro, Microsoft Photo Editor – is free image and photo editing software for computers that run Windows. It offers support for layers, unlimited undo, special effects, and a wide variety of useful and powerful tools. An active and growing online community provides friendly help, tutorials, and plugins.

Blender: Blender is a full-featured open source 3D content creation suite, available for all major operating systems. I don’t know the first thing about 3D modelling, but one look at the Blender Gallery and it’s easy to tell this is an impressively powerful free program.

6 OS / Utilities / Misc

Ubuntu: Deriving its name from the Zulu word for “humanity”, Ubuntu is a free, open source, operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux. Generally considered the most popular Linux distribution, and there are a lot of them, Ubuntu does pretty much everything your OS should – what can we say, it’s an OS, not inherently interesting. It’s decently pretty, damn simple to install and use, and has an extremely active community of users/developers.

Pidgin: Pidgin is a multi-protocol Instant Messaging client that allows you to use all of your IM accounts at once. It supports [deep breath]: AIM, Bonjour, Gadu-Gadu, Google Talk, Groupwise, ICQ, IRC, MSN, MySpaceIM, QQ, SILC, SIMPLE, Sometime, XMPP, Yahoo!, and Zephyr. About the only big IM it doesn’t cover is Skype, because Skype’s protocol isn’t open.

Filezilla: If you have reason to connect to a server via FTP, FileZilla is the FTP program of choice. The FileZilla Client is a fast and reliable cross-platform FTP, FTPS and SFTP client with lots of useful features and an intuitive graphical user interface. It also supports drag and drop transfers, resumption of upload/download, configurable speed limits, keep-alive scripting and automatic upgrades.

7zip: A fantastic replacement to Windows’ default ZIP archiver, 7-Zip is open source software that offers a 2-10% compression increase over PKZip or WinZip. It also packs and unpacks 7z, ZIP, GZIP, BZIP2 and TAR files; while also supporting the ability to unpack RAR, CAB, ISO, ARJ, LZH, CHM, MSI, WIM, Z, CPIO, RPM, DEB and NSIS files. Additionally it fully integrates with Windows and offers localizations for 69 languages.

Risk Factors

Along with the many benefits of open source code there are a number of risks according to the Software Licensing Committee of the American Bar Association.

Potential liability for Infringement:

Perhaps the most obvious risk is potential liability for intellectual property infringement. The typical open source project contains contributions from many people. This method of development can be worrisome from an intellectual property standpoint because it creates multiple opportunities for contributors to introduce infringing code. The risks of this development process are largely borne by the licensees.

Contributors may not vouch for the cleanliness of the code they contribute to the project; in fact, the opposite may be true -- the standard open source license is designed to be very protective of the contributor.

Shift of Risk to Developer/Licensee:

The typical open source license form does not include any intellectual property representations, warranties or indemnities in favour of the licensee; t contains a broad disclaimer of all warranties that benefits the licensor/contributors. Many of the most prominent open source projects appear to be owned by thinly-capitalized non-profit entities that do not have the financial where with all to answer for a massive intellectual property infringement suit. The shifting of all risk for intellectual property infringement to the licensee is atypical for the commercial software world. Most for-profit software companies would require some level of contractual assurances from a licensor of software technology that such technology does not infringe intellectual property rights.

Doubtful Ownership of Derivative Works:

When investing in companies developing with open source software one needs to consider the problems associated with creating derivative works.

Some open source license forms, such as the General Public License (GPL), require licensees to provide free copies of their derivative works in source code form for others to use, modify and redistribute This licensing term makes it very difficult for companies in the commercial software business to use such open source software as a foundation for a business because their "value added" programs might someday be viewed as "derivative works" and need to be made available to the world in source code form for free.

Multiple Contributors:

Some open source projects have multiple contributors and modules that have been created under various licensing forms. According to the terms of most open source licenses, the licensee must give each of these contributors full copyright attribution and reproduce the entire text of the license agreements for the open source code included in the product. These notices and licenses can clutter up documentation files and confuse end user customers.

Copyright infringement is a crime and in order to protect themselves and their customers from potential legal, ownership, and business interruption issues, enterprises developing applications or investors buying/funding companies using open-source software need to:

•Assess the code base:

It is important to note that when an enterprise or investor decides to assess the code base, the first investigation is the most important. The entity who conducts that investigation is also critical as is the process which needs to be managed to get the best and most accurate information. Consideration must be given to preserve attorney-client privilege when undertaking such an assessment so as to allow the information flow to be controlled and to limit the number of people involved in the investigation.

•Evaluate the processes that are in place:

Once a decision is made to assess the code, projects should be prioritized and the entire code base should not be assessed at once. One project should be reviewed at a time

And that review should be completed before the next review is started.

•Undertake remediation:

The most difficult issue company’s face, after such a code review, is tracking code that has been distributed to third parties and answering the question of what their obligations are to notify third parties. Before doing so they need to fully understand the way the third party uses and redistributes the code as well as the third party's obligation to install an update.

•Roll out a compliance program:

Establish a due diligence policy and implement automated end-auditable business controls. Companies need to evaluate existing procedures, both the formal and informal ones, as well as identify opportunities to capitalize on the benefits of using open source.

Open Source Software Risks for Small Businesses

1. “Nothing in Life is Free”

This old saying still reigns true in the case of Open Source Software.  A good amount of OSS requires training, service and support, which in many cases cost the user more than the original product it’s replacing. Also, support is a big consideration when using OSS, because there are no longer clear support channels for internal, external, accountability and service legal agreements, which can cost tremendously in the long run. So, in hindsight your “free software” may have no initial cost, yet ongoing maintenance and hidden dangers may “break the bank” down the road.

2. Legal Restrictions

“5-1-5-0 somebody call the PoPo.” Okay, not really. The “Popo” probably won’t be called in many OSS cases, but legality is a major risk OSS users need to consider.  Unlike proprietary software vendor, Hewlett-Packard who has legal protections, OSS can violate third-party intellectual property rights and users receive no contract protection. Without contract protection, OSS users fall vulnerable to copyright infringements and intellectual property claims. These are risk factors users deeply need to consider before choosing to use open source technology.

3. Operability

There is nothing worse than having great news, but no one to share it with. The same holds true, for open source technology. OSS users that enable components of their software and services for availability to business partners must realize that certain codes have the potential to not work in other environments. Users who plan to use OSS need to ensure their capabilities, before promising to share it with others, outside of their primary network.

LEGAL RISKS

Institutions should identify and consider the legal risks associated with the use of FOSS prior to deployment or development. Key legal risks include licensing, infringement, indemnification, and warranties. In most cases, prior to selecting a FOSS solution, institutions should consult with counsel knowledgeable in the areas of copyright and patent law.

LICENSING

FOSS acquisition and use can be governed by any of more than fifty different licenses that have significant differences in the rights and restrictions contained in the license. In general, FOSS licenses permit copying, distribution, and modification of the software, but do not contain any warranty or indemnification. A list of some of the most common FOSS licenses can be found at the Open Source Initiative’s Web site ().

The most common FOSS license is the General Public License (GPL). Software covered by the GPL can be modified, but any release or distribution of modified software must be accompanied by an offer to provide the source code under the same GPL license. Stated another way, anyone can use the software and change the program code, but the new code cannot be redistributed as a proprietary application.

The Berkley Software Distribution license (BSD) is another common FOSS license. It also allows redistribution of source code, but with a few basic restrictions. For example, the code must retain a copyright notice and disclaimer and a stipulation that the entity providing the 5license is not to be used for endorsements of derivative products. However, the BSD license does not include a clause requiring a specific licensing model for derivative works. This allows products created using BSD-licensed code to be used in proprietary software.

The terms and conditions of proprietary software licenses typically require a seat management program where users and available licenses are tracked and matched to avoid violating the terms of the license agreement. Customarily, FOSS does not license by seat, which may result in significant cost savings. In some cases, FOSS sold by VARs may have a license fee based upon the number of servers on which the software is installed.

Institutions considering the use of FOSS should seek qualified counsel regarding the

Requirements and restrictions of the particular license governing possession and use of the

Software. Institutions should be aware of the fact that FOSS usage may not require the execution of a traditional written contract. In most cases, the electronic download agreement or mere use of the code binds the institution to the terms of the license. Institutions should be prepared to demonstrate they performed a legal review of FOSS licenses, track licenses and changes to them through automated or manual means, and understand the legal consequences of combining open source and proprietary software.

LICENSING INFRINGEMENT

Institutions that use computer software run the risk of being sued for either copyright or patent infringement. However, the potential for an infringement lawsuit is more likely if the institution is using FOSS because, unlike proprietary software, FOSS is developed in an open environment where code is shared and modified by numerous unaffiliated parties. This code sharing increases the possibility that proprietary code may be inserted in the FOSS at some point during the development process. Institutions can mitigate this risk by Retaining qualified legal counsel to advise the institution concerning FOSS licensing. Implementing enterprise-level policy and business rules that mandate strict adherence to license terms and conditions.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download