End Report Project 06222 Open Nordic

July 2008 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration • Creating a center based on existing institutions • Create a repository of business models on open source software • Create opportunities for sharing open source software across the Nordics • Make the open source model accessible for both public and private sector Photo: Rune Tollisen Authors: Morten Kjærsgaard, Mats Østling, Petri Räsänen, Guðmundur Ásmundsson and Fredrik Syversen

The following people and institutions have participated in the project: Iceland Sweden Samtök iðnaðarins Sveriges kommuner og landsting Guðmundur Ásmundsson Mats Østling gudmundur@si.is mats.ostling@skl.se Finland Denmark Center for Open Source Software Danish Open Source Business Association Petri Räsänen Morten Kjærsgaard petri.rasanen@coss.fi mortenk@magenta-aps.dk Norway IKT-Norge Fredrik Syversen fs@ikt-norge.no

Title: Creating a virtual Nordic Center for Open Source Software Nordic Innovation Centre project number: 06222 Authors: Morten Kjærsgaard, Mats Østling, Guðmundur Ásmundsson, Petri Räsänen, , Claus Lassen, Anders Nordh, and Fredrik Syversen Institutions: Danish Open Source Business Association (Denmark), Sveriges kommuner og landsting (Sweden), Center for Open Source Software (Coss Finland), Samtök iðnaðarins (Iceland) Abstract: The aim of this project has been to create a real Nordic Open Source Center based on existing institutions. Create a repository of business models and best practice of OSS projects in the Nordic, to look at the developer networks in the Nordics. In addition we wanted to create a virtual Nordic code sharing site. To conclude our project we hosted a Nordic conference. We also concentrated on the public relations part which we believe is one of the main strategies of bringing awareness of open source to the public at large. The main result of the project: The project has been focused on getting the Nordic players to work together. Our main task has been to align and leverage on the different strong points the players have. Doing this have made it easier to achieve concrete results. A focused survey among the top Open Source Software companies (OSS) in the Nordics have been made. Both business models and the development process have been documented with real companies and real projects. In addition our Finnish partner have contributed with extensive research made on business models connected to OSS. During the duration of the projects there have been established a code sharing sites in all the Scandinavian countries and Finland is on the verge of doing the same. Groundwork have been done in order to connect these initiatives so that both code and business can flow across the Nordics. The practices of the Nordic developer networking have been studied, good Nordic and global practices have been identified, and good practices have been promoted in the target groups of the open source centers. The end conference was held in Norway, Skien late June with over 300 participants from all over Europe. This gave us a opportunity to show the Nordic relevance and commitment to OSS Topic/NICe Focus Area: ICT ISSN: Language: English Pages: 60 Key words: ICT, Open Souce, Code sharing, Business models, Conference, developer networks, software, ecosystems Distributed by: Nordic Innovation Centre www.nordicinnovation.net Contact person: Fredrik Syversen, Director IKT-Norge www.ikt-norge.no The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration III

IV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Contents Executive Summary 1 Part 1: Business models 1 Building a Best Practice Repository 6 1.1. Business Models in the Nordics 6 1.2 The Question of Ecosystem 8 1.3 Development from Traditional Licensing to Open Source Software 9 2 Developing New OSS projects 9 2.1 Internationalisation within Open Source Software 10 Part 2: Nordic Code Sharing Site (Work package 3) 11 Background 11 The website 13 Developer’s area 13 A virtual Nordic code-sharing site – work and results 13 Conclusion and recommendations 14 Part 3: Developer Networking 15 Introduction 15 Types of open source communities and collaboration 16 Open source community sustainability evaluation 19 Evaluation of open source software 20 Conclusions and recommendations 21 Appendix Appendix 1: Summary of WP Responsible and Deliveries I Appendix 2: Business models for open source and nordic collaboration II Appendix 3: Study on the use of Open Source Software in the Norwegian Software Industry, Conclusions XV Appendix 4: Survey XVII Appendix 5: An Example of a Supplier-driven site: The Danish Software Exchange XXI Appendix 6: Open Source Business (Models) XXII Appendix 7: Glossary of Open Source Software Terminology XXIII Appendix 8: Program XXIV Appendix 9: Press facsimiles XXIX The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration V

vi The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Executive Summary Background: The Nordic business sector is probably one the most advanced regions in the world. This means that all business and public institutions relies heavily on their ICT-infrastructure to be the most cost efficient and modern. It is paramount, not only for the ICT-Industry bit for all to have some knowledge and aid when challenged by OSS as a innovation model, business model and a development model. I order to compete with global business, knowledge and actions on these issues are crucial for future success . Sharing on a Nordic level will give us a broader and more complete insight than working on this nationally. It is also important for business in the OSS environment to meet Nordic colleagues that can motivate and aid them, as this is yet a new way to do business. OSS is fast changing the way we develop and do business. In many ways OSS is the major running business philosophy in the Internet business. Google, Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, and their equivalents in the Nordics and in Europe. They are all based upon free use and the sharing of information content and opinions, their founders are all based in the OSS world. We strongly feel that the Nordics have the characteristics that gives us an edge compared to rest of Europe, and of course Finland with Linux have strong traditions to OSS. But the facts that the Nordics are user-oriented, have often flat organizations and are based upon notion that knowledge sharing and the spreading of information are a benefit to the whole. These facts underlines the need to introduce OSS to both public sector and for business. We are going to both benefit from and contribute to the Nordic culture of sharing and collaborating, which is a natural and embedded part of our open societies Open Source is as a community of equals. Typically there is a real-world community built around the mailing lists and support groups of Open Source, but more importantly, as a user of open source you regain control over your use of software. You are not simply a powerless consumer. The impact of open source technology is expected to be quite noticeable in the software industry, and in society as a whole. It allows for novel development models, which have already been demonstrated to be especially well suited to efficiently take advantage of the work of developers spread across all corners of the planet. It also enables completely new business models, which are shaping a network of groups and companies based on open source software development. And it has, in general, a very positive impact as an enabler for the creation of new markets and business opportunities. The Nordic public sector is well known for having an advanced and modern ICT-infrastructure and a high level of ICT-use within the administration as well as in the services offered to citizens. In order to take another step in the development of a modern and effective eGovernment in the Nordic public sector, we have to find new methods and models for sharing knowledge, experience and ICT-solutions. Scope Open source software (OSS) is the most disruptive change in the world of software since the introduction of the Internet. OSS challenges the given truths in many areas: New innovation models, new development models, new business models, new licensing models, new support models, new value chain models. All these new ways of creating new software and new solutions creates great challenges and great opportunities. Today the open source infrastructure is based on Nordic initiatives LAMP, is the foundation of much of the OSS systems. L stands for Linux, the operating system out of Finland, A stands for Apache the server system out of US, M stands for MySQL the database company of of Sweden/Finland, and finally P stands for PHP, the code language for web solutions out of Denmark. Norway has a number of companies that also gives the Nordics a certain position with the global OSS community. Aim of the project: • Create a real virtual Nordic Open Source Center based on existing institutions. • Create a repository of business models best practice of OSS projects in the Nordic. (WP2) • Create a virtual Nordic code sharing site. (WP3) • Developer networking. (WP4) • Host a Nordic conference (WP5) • Public relations The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The aim of the work-packages: Business models: The main objective was to describe the different business models when working with an Open Source model, with focus om these areas; * Developing new software using OSS projects * Business development from traditional license model to OSS * Internationalization within OSS Nordic Open Source Repository The main objective was to establish a virtual Nordic code sharing site, and describe best practice from Nordics and EU. This work package aimed at: * Connectings the Nordic initiatives * Involve and Challenge the use and development on a cross-Nordic level * Create a working relationship with private sector on use, support, and maintenance on OSS Development networks The task was to identify “best practice” in organizing, financing, and the administration of OSS projects and tom iIdentify developer networks in the Nordics. Nordic Conference and PR The conference was to end with a conference that attracted both people from the Nordics and Europe. The aim was to bring the Nordic dimension and to tell the story of the project. PR has been an important and integrated part of our project with focus both on the ICT media and business media. Conclusions and recommendations Business models There are varying degrees as to which you can open your software to other parties and thereby opening up a whole range of different possible modes of doing business. Open source is no longer regarded as an exclusive either-or, but rather as an element among others around which o build ones particular business. There seems to be an abundance of open source related projects within the software industry. A great many and very diverse projects take place along the lines of a variety of different business models, but in general there is only little ecosystem present to preserve and maintain the recycling, integration and further development of open source software. If already conquered territory is to be retained and safeguarded against the threat of evaporating over time, lasting ecosystems needs to be established. Frameworks within which players are offered the continuity necessary for the proliferation and recycling of open source related products and projects, and where market positions can be maintained and strengthened. The partners in the Open Nordic project has established a strong collaboration crossing the national boundaries in the Nordic countries. The Open Nordic Centre has, among other things, been coordinating software repositories in the Nordics, which today is widely used, especially by the respective public sectors. The Open Nordic Centre is, in our opinion, only in the first and very important stages of the Open Nordic project. The next step would be to focus upon the Nordic software industry, which holds a promising potential for future growth (or, as one researcher on the industry would have it “the future of Open source software looks indeed very Nordic”, referring to LINUX, APACHE, MySQL, PHP, among others^1 <#sdfootnote1sym>). The partners of the Open Nordic collaboration wish to strengthen the position of Nordic companies in the respective domestic markets, and we wish to do so by turning the Scandinavian markets into one single domestic market, hereby giving the Nordic enterprises the needed platform for competing on global level with of large-scale international corporations. Naturally, the Open Nordic partners are aware of the fact, that this task cannot be managed be the Open Nordic on its own. This is a long-lasting process, the success of which, depends on several players. On the other hand, this process needs to be started, and the Open Nordic Centre is more than ready to take on this 2 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

task. Through a large and extended network linking with both enterprises, civil servants, private and public decision makers, the Open Nordic Centre will be able to set the direction for open source code software and its competitiveness on the software markets. Nordic Code sharing site (WP3) The first part of the Virtual Nordic code-sharing site is finished and we have established a close and rewarding collaboration. A common taxonomy have been agreed upon as well as the methods for exchanging information and make searches in all the Nordic repositories possible. Connections to other repositories are established and we can see a growing interest for what is happening in the Nordic countries. There are a number of other areas that we don’t have fully explored yet, where the repositories could benefit from continuous collaboration. We have held a number of workshops regarding the collaboration between the code-sharing sites. The discussions have focused on taxonomy, strategies and policies, exchange of news and how to populate the repositories with software. Two more repositories have been added to the two already existing. The experiences and findings have been discussed and described in workshops, seminars and conferences. The Nordic repositories have been active in the European community and played a vital role in the progress of OSOR, the EU-repository, thus creating a platform for the Nordic Public Sector and the Nordic vendors in the European Open Source Community. A common Nordic software market for Opens Source Software is not that far away if we continue with our efforts. It is important that the Nordic countries keep on collaborating with the EU-repository -OSOR, but even more important the Nordics play an active part in the process and the ongoing development. We have just started to examine the nature of communities where the Public Sector is to be involved, and both research and case studies is needed to understand how re-use of publicly developed software can occur. Developer Networking (WP4) The starting point to understand business -developer community collaboration is the typology of open source communities. Four ideal types of open source communities can be identified: 1. Centralized, company-driven, small community (e.g. MySQL) 2. Large community, several companies, business work ethics (e.g. Eclipse) 3. Large community, several companies, hacker background (e.g. Linux kernel, Gnome) 4. Volunteer, decentralized, large (e.g. Debian). Different kinds of recommendable collaboration models are presented for each community type. The sustainability profile of a open source community in crucial factor the management of open source business risk. An evaluation model that comprises the social, economical, legal and cultural sustainability factors is suggested. Several systematic tools are available for the evaluation of open source software. The value of these tools is not only in the final result the method produces, but the process itself. Suggestions for further action: Action Who Education of software professionals and Open source competence centres, Universities companies related to methods and processes of community collaboration New knowledge and knowledge sharing about Universities, Open source competence centres creating new communities Catalysing company-community collaboration: Open source compence centres conferences, workshops, project funding The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Nordic Conference (WP5). Throughout 2007 we have organized a dialogue between all the major Conferences related in the Nordics and worked to make the participation in these conferences less national and more Nordic by promoting each national conference through the contact networks in all the 5 Nordic countries. We have developed a joint brand, Open Nordic, now being offered to other Nordic Conferences to brand them as more Nordic and enable them to attract a broader Nordic participation. The wrap up conference for the project will be the first in what we hope will be a series of well established conferences branded by the Open Nordic brand. The first conference will be the transformed version of eZ Conference, originally the largest Open Source related conference in content management. Last year eZ Conference attracted more the 300 participants from more then 30 countries. June 19th –20th a rebranded Open Nordic version of the eZ conference was held in Skien Norway. The scope this first Open Nordic conference will be broader the original eZ conference now also hosting Open Nordic Mobile in cooperation with a number of players in the mobile services and technology sector. Over 300 people from all over Europe attended the conference. We also awarded a company and a person for their outstanding contribution to the open source community in the Nordics, winners were Bjørn Venn (Individual), and MySql (Company). PR/media The project has used the project meeting in each country to get press coverage to promote project results into the media. In addition the end conference gave us opportunities focus in the projects and its Please see attached clippings on the project-related coverage for 2007 in appendix 2. Photo: Rune Tollisen The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The way ahead The projects have identified a number of areas where future collaboration will make a big difference. The key cooperation areas and their specific challenges are illustrated below. Collaboration area Key challenge Who could participate Political focus on the OSS Move current strong political Governments, Nordic council, Public opportunity for the Nordics- support in Norway to more agencies both as builders of an advanced countries and make the public eService offering and as Norwegian political support more a business case for increased robust. software based export. Sharing of code for use in private Only a small fraction of code The national Competency centers and public sectors and building shared in current repositories are in collaboration with OSS vendor of sustainable communities being used and enhanced because association, developer and user around the code they lack an active community communities and related Research and an ecosystem . We need and Education institutions to learn more involved actors the best practices of building a sustainable community/ecosystem Procurement of software based Current procedures, buying Governments, public agencies and solutions in public sector cultures and competencies of bodies. public purchasers are keeping OSS based solutions and vendors out of the public sector OSS related education and A nonexistent and at best a very Nordic Universities and University research fragmented offering in an area Colleges, research institutions where the biggest growth barriers in technology, social sciences, is the availability of talents economic and business development. Venture Capital interest and Lack of insights into OSS related Business angels with experience funding availability business models, practices and in OSS. VC associations, ICT strategies associations. Strengthening the OpenNordic A large portion of the OSS Current “owners” of the OpenNordic brand and establish more related events and networks are brand; primarily the competency permanent transnordic events national only. This reduces our centers, the ICT associations and and communities ability to make Nordic and global the current networks controlling collaborations succeed in the key OSS events. global arena The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Part 1: Business models 1 Building a Best Practice Repository In order to expand the knowledge of working business models in open source enterprises in Scandinavia, as well as testing the grounds for a future Nordic network – Open Nordic, the Nordic Virtual Centre of Open Source (the project) instigated a small-scale probe into the business models of enterprises in Finland, Den- mark, Norway and Sweden.1) The query was carried out in the during the whole project, and constitutes the foundation of an Open Nordic best practice repository. 27 Scandinavian companies were asked to answer a series questions regarding their business models, the creation of revenues, the structure of the ecosystem surrounding their opens source activities and the possibility of linking onto these ecosystems. A minimum of five companies was selected from each of the 4 countries (respectively 8 Finnish, 9 Danish, 6 Norwegian and 5 Swedish companies chose to participate). The companies represent a diverse segment of open source enterprises offering a broad range of open source related activities, services and products. The group consisted of both large internationally located companies crossing national boundaries (globally as well as in the Nordics only), and smaller locally based enterprises. For future use and furthering of already established networks contact information for all 28 companies was gathered and stored in the repository.2) The query behind the repository must therefore also be seen much less as a scientific research proper, than a first step in bringing together open source enterprises in the Nordic countries and as one of the first steps in creating of a Nordic network for open source software enterprises. The intention was both to provide Open Nordic with an initial grouping together of possible companies interested in future cooperation as well as a tool for mapping open source software-related business activities in the Scandinavian countries. Best practice is to be understood in the sense of different and well-established business models for open source related enterprises.3) The questions where designed in order to highlight different business models in enterprises connected to and earning an income from open source software related activities. The query should be able to provide examples of different possible models of doing business in the software industry involved with open source in Scandinavia. Of special interest to the Open Nordic Centre was the importance of the network and/or ecosystem in the distribution and proliferation of open source solutions. 1.1. Business Models in the Nordics The query was intended to highlight different working business models in the Nordic countries. Enter- prises were asked to state their main field of specialisation and their company’s primary source of income working with open source. Secondly, they were asked to describe their business model in their own words. Enterprises were asked to place their company within five different categories:4) Open Source and Hardware I.e. the use of open source as the foundation for the software running their machines when making hardware. Open source and Aggregation Companies that assemble various open source software packages into integrated and easily consumable units. ) The number of open source-enterprises based in Iceland is still very limited, and although the Icelandic forum for open source activities (the Icelandic SI) is part of the Open Nordic collaboration, wherefore there are no current plans of expanding the repository to covering Iceland. 2) The repository is available at http://www.coss.fi/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=PUB.0.7 , at the Open Nordic homepage. ) The Finnish research project OSSI - ”Managing OSS As an Integrated Part of Business” under COSS has been the foundation for the Open Nordic virtual centre’s understanding of ”business models” as well as ”best practice”. For further information see: http://www.coss.fi/web/coss/research/ossi/publications ) Again, the work of Finnish COSS, and especially the work of Mikko Puhakka, has been extremely helpful in choosing the defining categories of this repository. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Open source and Buy Off Companies that offer a proprietary license for their open-source software, in order for their customers to modify and redistribute software without having to make the code changes available to the public. Mixed An open-source code base with proprietary add-ons. Open Source and Service Companies that sell support and services around open source software. Open Source and hardware 28,6% Open Source and agregation 35,7% q2 Business models Open Source and buy off 10,7% Mixed 32,1% Open Source and Service 71,4% 0% 20% 0% 0% 80% As the illustration clearly shows, open source software related services is by far the most prominent of the five categories.5) Nearly three-quarters of the interviewed companies view the provision of services related to open source as their main source of income. This is significantly larger than any of the other areas of interest, and exactly twice as large as the second-place category concerning the aggregation and integration of open source software. Equally significant, only ten percent of the interviewed companies were basing their business upon offering a proprietary license for open source software. This picture is confirmed by the enterprises own description of their business model, for many (13 of 28 companies, or nearly half ) of the firms in question «support and service» (or deviations hereof, «maintenance» e.g.) is a main area of business, offering support agreements, contracts or long or short-term subscriptions to support services. If one counts the 9 companies (a little less than a third of the companies asked), who described themselves as providing training or services of an educational nature, and on top of this add the companies, who claimed to offer «consulting» (again nearly half ) as a main part of their business model, it becomes quite obvious how important the area of services is within the world of open source.6) Least surprisingly maybe, is the fact that only a third of the interviewed companies were engaged in offering a proprietary license for their own open-source software allowing their customers to modify software. First of all, this business model tends to go somewhat against the grain of open source software and in fact to offer semi-closed/semi-open software and secondly this might still create some of the disadvantages normally attributed to proprietary software, albeit in a much smaller scale. However inte- restingly enough, it shows that there are varying degrees as to which you can open your software to other parties and thereby opening up a whole range of different possible modes of doing business – finding ones own particular niche, as it were. One the other hand (and despite the fact that the figure is signifi- ) A clarifying remark regarding the illustration: The 28 companies were not limited to one single category, when stating their business model. ) In an indirect manner this seem also to comply to the result sof the Norwegian NTNU-study, who also found the business sector of consultancies to be one of the more active proponents of open source software and related services. The NTNU report is available at http://research.idi.ntnu.no/oss/NTNU_friprog.pdf. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration 7

cantly small), the category of buy-off in itself might show that open source is no longer regarded as an exclusive either-or dichotomy, but rather as a pick-and-choose element among others around which to build ones particular business. A more common way, however of mixing proprietary and open source software is by offering open source software entailing proprietary add-ons. This might still not satisfy the OSS purist, nevertheless this model is less prone to the disadvantages of ordinary proprietary software. This might be at its most apparent in business models such as the dual licence model, where commercial developers are offered software under commercial licensing, while at the same time making the software available to the noncommercial user. The remaining categories of «open source and aggregation», «open source and hardware» along with the above mentioned category of open-source base «mixed» with proprietary add-ons all constitute around a third of the interviewees each. The first of the three categories, aggregational packaging and integra- tional development of open source software, being the largest of the three, and somewhat larger than the smallest of the three, concerned with the making hardware through the use of open source software. Again, as long as the world of open source is as diversified (and ever diversifying) a field as is the case, the continuous use, reuse, integration, reintegration and repackaging of software is unavoidably linked with the business practises in this area is hardly surprising. 1.2 The Question of Ecosystem Regarding the question of ecosystem and the character of the networks surrounding open source business models in the Nordic countries the interest of the Open Nordic Centre lay first and foremost in the mapping of ecosystems both regarding quantity and quality, and secondly in ways of furthering and/or strengthening current ecosystems. 7) The understanding of the term ecosystem seems to be posing certain difficulties due to the fact that answers are not always consistent (e.g. some use quantity and size as an indicator, others focus upon the quality of an ecosystem by using the words «weak», «strong» and the like). However, on a very general level it is possible to pull-out certain result of the answers given. Companies relate to ecosystems to varying degrees, and the strength and quality of the various ecosystems, they are a part of, differ greatly. Furthermore each ecosystem might be very different regarding its make-up, built more or less loosely around the collaboration on products, projects, firms or even rather minimal participation on a pure verbal level of «ideology», as it were. Participation ranges from the almost non-existent to taking part in a very strong and well-established network (although only a few companies claim to be participating in such an ecosystem). Quite a few companies complain about a weak network or ecosystem, some claiming not to be contributing much or only on an individual basis. Others seem to be posing the very same concern in a more positive vein; hoping for firmer structures, larger networks with more companies involved. Only very few are claiming to be part of a large network (not mentioning any actual size, however). A large subsection have a network consisting of 2 to 6 smaller companies, whereas others are coupled with one other (often larger) company, e.g. as partner or sub supplier. When it comes to the question regarding the entry of an ecosystem, the general trend seems to be an initial openness without any hesitations, albeit this is often expressed rather loosely. Answers vary from «the ecosystem is open» and «anybody is welcome» to «send an e-mail» - which might be interpreted as a general acceptance and willingness to participate in and furthering ones ecosystem, however without any actual strategy towards this end (which is admitted only by a few of the participants). Others claim that entry into the ecosystem would be based upon skills, knowledge and competencies. Others again would base this upon an evaluation of common goals and interests. Very few explicitly hold some sort of pledge of allegiance to the open source cause as an absolute condition. 7) A definition of an ecosystem might be, that it covers policies, strategies, processes, information, technologies, applications and stakeholders that together make up the technological environment for any given enterprise. Most importantly an ecosystem includes people – individuals who create, buy, sell, regulate manage and use open source technology. Therefore an ecosystem also covers the term usually referred to as “a network”. 8 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

1.3 Development from Traditional Licensing to Open Source Software The Nordic world of open source software, as it presents itself from within the repository, constitutes a diversified field with various different ways of doing business. The world of open source has gone a long way from being a primarily developer/programmer driven activity to being a thriving business sector including a rather large spectrum and different ways of doing business, be they based upon services, hardware work, integration and development of projects, products and regardless whether they take place within consultancies, as suppliers proper or partners etc. Even if open source activities might not yet be the most main streamed part of the world of software, then it has, at least risen well above ground level.8) Although open source software may not always be the most visible part (often not even to the agents themselves) of the fauna and flora of the software industry, it is at least flourishing in the lower parts of the environment. A clear indicator for the overall acceptance and widespread use of open source is the fact that a number of the respective companies seemingly quite easy cross the boundaries between closed and open source code software. The fact that possible business models within the open source world seem able to cover positions ranging from a traditional uncompromising open source purism to more tolerant (or at least pragmatist) attitudes towards the mixing of open and proprietary source code, only goes to show that open source quite naturally seem to have grown into and been adapted by an already existing world of business. Of course it might be due to the simple necessity that some companies (to different degrees and in different ways) offer a mix of open and closed source code, but nevertheless it shows the almost inescapable persistency, with which the open source software has been entering the market. 2 Developing New OSS projects On the basis of this initial repository little can be said about the actual influence of the respective ecosystems regarding further development and the proliferation of open source. However, it must be assumed that the existence of larger networks and of actual (and durable) ecosystems enhances the overall possibility of spreading open source code software (regarding particular products as well as network based projects embracing several players). An ecosystem that endures over time is a condition for the use, reuse and integration of open source software, as well as a requirement for further business opportunities for the particular agent, simply by enhancing the reachable surfaces and contact possibilities for the firm in question. Are open source businesses to be more than just another service provider for a particular section of the software industry (as we have seen the provision of services is almost a mandatory obligation for a vast majority of the questioned companies in the repository), then such a system or systems are the precondition for the further development of software. If already conquered territory is to be retained and safeguarded against the threat of evaporating along with the ending of projects, finishing of products or simply to turn into questions of maintenance, service and support, then a durable framework needs to be provided, in which the players are offered the continuity necessary for the proliferation and recycling of open source related products and projects: A framework where the highly celebrated openness actually can take place and continue to take place. Lasting networks and actual well-established ecosystems are conditions for maintaining positions already gained, for further developing and growth of open source software related projects. The great problem is not the quantity and amount of open source related projects – there seems to be an abundance of projects within this particular world of the software industry. A great many and very diverse open source related projects take place along the lines of a variety of different business models.But in general there is only a little ecosystem present to preserve and maintain the recycling, integration and further development of open source software. In a great many of the cases discussed here, what is needed therefore is the establishing of a structure that allows for both openness and continuity – a framework that at the same time provides players with the necessary structure of sustainability, without having to reverse the current developments within the dustry towards proprietary software once again. 8) For further evidence see also the EUC report “Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies sector in the EU” from 200: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/200--20-flossimpact.pdf The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

2.1 Internationalisation within Open Source Software Regarding the question of internationalisation within the world open source software or related activities, the theme of ecosystems equally plays an important role when it comes to the overcoming of national boundaries. In a certain sense this takes place more or less on its own and by itself in world marked by globalisation and an extreme widening of spheres of interest. Nonetheless, the furthering open source code software and related projects cannot be left completely to itself. It must be nurtured and structured around frameworks, that are easily accessible, albeit not too loosely defined. The Open Nordic centre is off course not an ecosystem of its own. It is however intended to provide open source players in the Nordics with the frameworks within which to acquire access to larger networks, supporting the development of open source business ecosystems in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Basing itself on existing structures and open source promotion activities conducted by the different agencies in each of the Nordic countries, the Open Nordic virtual centre promotes open source solutions and is intended to enable networking between both providers and developers. The creation of a virtual Nordic code sharing site for public administrations has been the pivot in these efforts. Photo: Joanna Myszak 0 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Part 2: Nordic Code Sharing Site (Work package 3) The first part of the creation of the Virtual Nordic code-sharing site is finished and we have established a close and rewarding collaboration. A common taxonomy have been agreed upon as well as the methods for exchanging information and make searches in all the Nordic repositories possible. Connections to other repositories are established and we can see a growing interest for what is happening in the Nordic countries. There are a number of other areas that we don’t have fully explored yet, where the repositories could benefit from continuous collaboration. Background In general there are three different approaches on Open Source Software for the Public Administration to consider: • The use of existing Open Source Software as a replacement for more expensive, heavy and functionally overloaded or less appropriate proprietary software. This is typically the case when you change to Open- Office, Linux, MySQL and other similar products. The reason for this kind of change is mainly economic, but vendor independence and the possibility to use cheaper and standardised hardware are also important aspects. • The use of existing Open Source Software as a way of improving your IT-environment by introducing new features and functionality. This is typically the case when adding new software (or components) or changing your infrastructure. In the last years we have seen a number of implementations of Open Source Software as a way to create a more flexible and effective infrastructure by introducing middle- layer architectures, web services, SOA and other modern features. In this scenario there are complete applications as well as libraries and components to be used. • The development of new software. This is the case when there is no software in the market meeting your needs. The public sector has many specialized task and duties to perform, and software vendors do not meet most of them. Apart from the central office environment, where you often find a mature and well- established IT-structure, most of the employees in the Public Sector lack the necessary IT-resources in order to be able to improve the efficiency in their daily work. When the Public Sector gets involved in developing new software it is mainly done by professional consultants and vendors. The first two options are not that different from the usual way of acquiring software. You may have to change the way you do procurements and tenders, and you have to educate the people in charge of acquisition how to take advantage of the new possibilities brought by Open Source Software. One important aspect though for the Public Organizations is that they should share their knowledge and experience in order to improve the efficiency of the Public Sector in general. Specifications, the basis for procurement, evaluation criteria’s and other documents is easily shared and can reduce both time and efforts for other public organizations. The third option, developing your own software, is something you have to take into careful consideration. The benefits of having a well suited software that fulfill your needs and the opportunity to offer your employees new functions and excellent IT-resources in their daily work are quite obvious, but the risk of ending up with a complex system that you have to support during its lifetime is evident. This is why sharing and re-use is of such great importance, lowering the risk of unique solutions used by just one organisation and instead create groups – communities – of public bodies and vendors developing and taking care of the software together. When the Public Sector engages in developing software, the coding and development it’s almost always done by professional consultants. In some rare occasions the development is done by the ITC-department itself, but in general the Public Sector acts as buyers, specifying the functionality and performance, working closely together with the vendor, monitoring the progress and testing the result. As a buyer you have to make sure that you are the owner of the resulting software so that you can share it with others as Open Source. Software developed by the Public Sector should be shared as Open Source Software whenever it’s possible. There are a number of licenses to choose between, so you will certainly be able to find one that suits your (and your lawyers) needs. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

There are some general structures that have to be at hand in order to make it possible to share code developed by the Public Administration. One is of course a place on Internet where you can publish your own code and find code from other organisations. Such a site is called a repository or forge. Another prerequi- site is knowledge and methods how to do share your code. Since this is a new phenomenon there are some uncertainty how to behave and what laws and regulations that could be of guidance. A third requirement is the insight and awareness that sharing and collaboration between the Public institutions is both necessary and rewarding. Changing the mindset of people is always a time consuming and patience proving process, but one that will pay off in the end. In order to promote the sharing between the Public Sectors in the Nordics we have focused on creating a virtual repository for Open Source Software in the Nordic Countries, formed by the existing national repositories. • Repositories and sharing The following statement is the fundament on which we have built the Virtual Open Source Repository for the Nordic Countries: Software developed on behalf of the Public Sector should by default be published as Open Source and thereby made available for others to use. Software developed by a public institution in order to provide a good and well-suited IT-support for the civil servants whit-in the organization may be as useful to other, similar public organizations. The work being done by one public body could therefore be of great value to another public body for a very low cost and result in a more efficient public sector and substantial cost savings on a national or even Nordic level. The structure and responsibilities of the public sector in the Nordic Countries are quite similar and even more so between the public bodies in each country. The potential of sharing and collaboration are in that respect quite obvious if we can provide structures and methods for sharing and re-use. Repositories aimed at the public sector can be found all over Europe. A common EU-initiative called OSOR have been under construction for some time and was launched at a meeting in Brussels in the mid of June 2008. During the project participants from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have been involved in the OSOR-project and have had some substantial impact on the result, meaning that in the coming years the Nordic repositories will find it easy to collaborate with OSOR, on a policy level as well on the technical side. The strategies behind the Nordic repositories has proven to work very well and can provide the Nordic Countries with a solid platform in the European context. The Nordic repositories (now present in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) has focused on publishing open source software develop by the public sector and at the same time strengthen and visualize the collaboration with the private vendors. The Public Sector needs professional tools developed by professional programmers, developed in a tight collaboration with the people that are going to use it. The Nordic software archives (as most of the software repositories) have two separate parts (except from the Finnish archive that so fort just have the website): • A user-oriented area, usually a website with information, news, search, forums and publications. • A development area with software archives, bug reporting, development timelines and other technical oriented tools. 2 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The website The website makes it possible for the intended users to find and learn about the available software without being programmers. The person responsible for the software can publish specifications, user experiences, the plans and ideas for further development and find others to discuss with. In order to create a virtual repository it is important to establish common structures. Using a common taxonomy makes it possible to search for software in other repositories. During the project we have decided to use a simplified version of the IDABC taxonomy for categorization of the published software. This will make it easy to compare software in our national archives as well as to collaborate with archives outside the Nordics. The IDABC taxonomy may in the future have to be combined with other of taxonomies and other ways of categorization, for example user tagging. News feeds (RSS) are a common and useful way of distributing news to other websites or persons. All the Nordic repositories use RSS as a way of sharing information and updates. RSS is also the basis for the possibility to find software in other archives by a single search in one of the repositories. RSS-feeds stored in a local database using the agreed taxonomy enable you to search in your native tongue and find software in other repositories. Even if you are not familiar with the language of the description of the software you at least know that the software you have found is within your line of search. Another part of the website concerns the vendors and the question of how to avoid lock-ins and instead create a vibrant market with enterprises competing with their knowledge and skills. One important aspect of the Open Source licenses is the opportunity to replace one vendor with another. With proprietary software you usually has to replace both the vendor and the software if you for some reason isn’t satisfied with the software you are using. Using Open Source Software puts you in the position of choosing a new vendor but keep on with the software. The vendor that has been engaged in the development of the software is of course in a better position than other vendors, due to the knowledge acquired during the development and that can lead to a sort of vendor lock-in. It’s important that the structure of the repository has some me- chanism that stimulates competition and give all vendors, not just the prior one, the opportunity to offer support and further development. One way to deal with this issue is to give the vendors the option to list them selves onto the software they feel that they can support. The vendors declare by listing them onto a specific piece of software that they have the knowledge and skill needed in order to offer good services based around that software. Developer’s area Apart from the user-oriented website the repositories also have a more technical structure, aimed for developers, programmers and project leaders. This is the forge, the place where the code is published and the development is made visible. The code could emerge in any of the different development phases: the first raw version, more developed stages to the final code, version 1.0. There are functions for reporting a bug, version tracking, and the appearance of new builds and of course the timeline for the development and when the different versions are to be released. At the present stage these parts of the Nordic repositories are used as archives, and they contain the first major versions, 1.0 of the published software. In the future there may be some project that will use more, maybe even all of the functions of the forges. A virtual Nordic code-sharing site – work and results During the last 18 months we have held five workshops regarding the collaboration between the forges. The discussions have focused on taxonomy, strategies and policies, exchange of news and how to populate the repositories. The two existing repositories have strengthened their position and two more repositories have been established. The work with the repositories has attracted a lot of media coverage and interest from a lot of people. The experiences and findings have been discussed and described in workshops, seminars and conferences. The managers of the Nordic repositories have been active in the European community and played a vital role in the progress of OSOR, the EU-repository. The discussions and collaboration between the Nordic countries have been of great importance, creating a platform for the Nordic Public Sector and the Nordic vendors in the European Open Source Community. A common taxonomy have been agreed upon as well as the methods for exchanging information and make searches in all the Nordic repositories possible. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Two of the repositories are built upon the same software, a practical example of successful code sharing. We have focused on how to promote and make it easier to share code, not just deposit it in the forge. Some examples are present from Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but this is an area that has to be explored and investigated further. At all the major Open Source Conferences aimed at the Public Sector, both in the Nordics as well in Europe, the Nordic initiative regarding code sharing, collaboration and promotion of open Source Software has been presented by speakers from the participating organisations. Connections to other repositories are established and we can see a growing interest for what is happening in the Nordic countries. The repositories are now parts of Competence Centres in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The question of Open Source in the Public Sector is not limited to just use and re-use of software. Open standards, architectural issues, security, quality and the building of communities are other aspects that have to be put into consideration. By forming Competence Centres the repositories are part of a more coherent context and can play an important role in a modernisation of the Public Sector. Conclusion and recommendations The first part of the Virtual Nordic code-sharing site is finished. We have a close collaboration and methods for exchange of news are established. There are a number of other areas that we don’t have fully explored yet, where the repositories could benefit from continuous collaboration. A common Nordic software market for Opens Source Software is not that far away if we continue with our efforts. The Nordic initiative have played a part in forming the European repository and we have the opportunity to establish a strong and vibrant platform for the Nordic Public Sector as well as for the Nordic vendors. The EU-repository – OSOR – will undergo some serious development the coming years and it’s important that the Nordic countries keep on collaborating with OSOR, but even more important play an active part in the process. We have to examine the nature of communities where the Public Sector is to be involved; this is so far a totally unexplored area. The traditional Open Source community can be described as a developer- community, with a lot of active programmers. This is a model that’s not suitable for the Public Sector as is. We should try to use the very successful community model but with some moderations so that ordinary users can participate together with project leaders and developers. Both research and case studies is needed to understand how re-use of publicly developed software can occur. Code-sharing is not just about publishing code, but more important about re-use, collaborative development and refining the software in order to create a more effective Public Sector working with well suited, specialised software. Photo: Rune Tollisen The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Part 3: Developer Networking Introduction Open source is a working model and unique creation of software developers and developer communities. Distributed development and the ability of talented developers to solve meaningful problems collaboratively is - now and in for future - the core success factor of open source. As the role of open source in software business has rapidly increased, it has become very important for software companies to understand how open source communities work and how they can interact with these communities, their culture and their ways of operation. The starting point of this work package was an analysis of the network relationships of open source developers. An illustration of these relationships is given in figure 1. The figure indicates that the network relationships are very complex and versatile. OSS Developer Networks my project users my community other communities other companies Universities & professional networks: Research My own LinkedIn, Ohloh etc company Figure 1. The network relationships of open source developers. Based on this analysis and related discussion, the Open Nordic team soon realised that in the further steps of the work package there is a clear need to focus on some aspects of the networking and collaboration. Based on the mission of the overall Open Nordic project, that is to support and promote open source business in the Nordic countries, a selection was made to focus on business - developer community relationships as illustrated in the blue area in the figure 1. Following this focus, the refined objective of the work package is to: • provide a summary of the latest information about the fundamentals of the nature open source developer community – business collaboration • provide insights about best practices related to business - developer community interaction and collaboration. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The Finnish Tekes-funded research project “Managing OSS as an Integrated Part of Business (OSSI)” (2005- 2007) has been a major source of knowledge and material in the work package. The researchers of this project have presented the results is several events of the project. OSSI- project developed a management framework by examining the phenomena of open source from the perspectives of sociology, technology and business. The business perspective was further divided in the research project to legal aspects, economics, business models, competitive strategy and value networks. For further information and reports of the project, please visit http:// www.coss.fi/web/coss/research/ossi . Types of open source communities and collaboration In a survey conducted by the OSSI-project among a group of leading open source communities (Gnome, Eclipse, Debian and MySQL), the overall attitude of communities towards company participation was surprisingly positive. Thus, the main question related to developer – business -collaboration is not if it is desirable and beneficial, but rather how it can be organised. The research groups suggests that FOSS communities may be divided into different categories according to idealised types, and that answering to the “how” question of participation must be differentiated according to the typology. Traditionally, OSS communities have been started as volunteer projects (e.g., GNU project, Linux kernel, De- bian). The traditional picture of hacker culture (see, e.g., Raymond 1999, Levy 1984) as an informal self-organizing bazaar of having fun while programming has largely been based on volunteer communities like these. Ho- wever, the traditional picture has recently changed considerably with more and more companies participating in OSS communities either by letting their employers work on OSS or by directly hiring developers working on OSS. Increasingly companies also initiate OSS communities either by releasing previously closed code or by directly engaging in OSS development from the start. Consequently, a continuum of communities from volunteer- based to company-based has appeared. Most generally, this shift can be observed on the level of the ethos of communities: the ideologically organized ways in which labour is understood, maintained and given meaning. The self-organizing volunteer way of “working for fun” has been dubbed “hacker ethics”. For example Pekka Himanen wants to explicitly contrast hacker ethics with the more well-known salary-based commercial ethics that prevails in modern corporations, where a division and rationalization of labour takes place based on institutional rules and hierarchies. Consequently, the characterization of OSS communities to volunteer-based or company- based does not mean (mainly) the initiation of the project, but rather the basic ideological framework that motivates and structures the operations of the community. Typically, a company-based community has hierarchical structures, deploys monetary rewards and divides labour on the basis of pre-set goals. In contrast, volunteer-based communities are self-organized, ground motivation on extra-monetary rewards and work on the basis of informal goal-setting (either anarchic, democratic or meritocratic). Today OSS communities are typically a mix of the two extremes. The work ethics of a community are closely tied to forms of decision making. Typically a self-organized community will favour decentralized decision making. One extreme is given by the decision on release dates in Debian: whenever the release is ready. In contrast, software development by and in a company will typically be centralized, with one source of authority deciding on, e.g., roadmaps and schedules. A middle ground between these two extremes is often sought by establishing a foundation or a similar organ that gives voice both to volunteers and the various institutions taking an interest in a given software development project. The foundation may guide development and structure schedules. Furthermore, communities may be classified on the basis of their age or maturity, size and the type of license in use: Size of the community. It can be assumed that a larger community is always more sustainable but potentially increases problem complexity for company participation. The size of the community must also reach a certain minimum size in order to make the open source effect work. Maturity of the community. This refers to the strength of the social and cultural ties, traditions and practices. A mature community is often old in age, and has developed common guidelines and best practices. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Communication and decision-making structures of the community. Different systems of governance exist in free/open source software communities, including democracy, meritocracy and dictatorship. Here special attention is given at how centralised communication is. This tells something about the governance structure, hierarchy and bottlenecks. License. The type of free/open source software license chosen by the community potentially affects who will participate in the community. Licenses can be classified based on how strong copyleft effect they have. GNU General Public License, for example, is a strong copyleft license, while Eclipse Public License gives more freedom, and licenses like the BSD license are not copyleft at all. When these four elements are combined with the volunteer/company axis, differences between communities can be identified as can be seen in figure 2 (with examples). Hybridity Volunteer Mixed Company Small Wordpress MySQL, Laika Size Medium OpenBSD Mozilla OpenSolaris Linux (kernel) Large Debian Eclipse GNOME Young Gnash Laika Maturity Developing Wordpress Mozilla OpenSolaris, Darwin Established GNU, Debian Linux (kernel) MySQL Decentralized Debian Eclipse Decision- Balanced Linux (kernel) making Centralized GNU Mozilla MySQL Non-copyleft OpenBSD Apache Eclipse, OpenSolaris, License Weak copyleft Mozilla Darwin Strong Linux (kernel) GNU MySQL copyleft GNOME Figure 2. Classification of open source communities. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration 7

In the classification above, we can see both differences and similarities between communities. Based on this analysis, some ideal types can be identified which characterise some of the most prominent differences between communities. Four ideal types of open source communities can be identified: • Centralized, company-driven, small community (e.g. MySQL) • Large community, several companies, business work ethics (e.g. Eclipse) • Large community, several companies, hacker background (e.g. Linux kernel) • Volunteer, decentralized, large (e.g. Debian) Correspondingly, different types of business-developer co-operation can be considered suitable with these types. Typically, small communities are more vulnerable. Here the risk of losing high-profile developers is considerable. On the other end, large communities often contain some inertia and may be susceptible to forks and internal disputes. From the perspective of sustainability, a large community that has also many participating companies is ideal. Diversity is the key to longevity in the open source ecosystem, as elsewhere. Based on the research and current knowledge, the following dos and donts for company- community collaboration can be presented for different types of communities: Centralized, company-driven, small community do: direct co-operation with the company do: customization in co-operation with the company risk: sustainability dependent on single company Large community, several companies, business work ethics do: involve own developers in the community do: collaboration with companies do: genuine contribution to community do: involvement in the decision making organs (e.g., Eclipse Foundation) don’t: expect spontaneous development of code Large community, several companies, hacker background do: involve own developers in the community do: quality contributions (“Show me the code!”) do: involvement in the Open Source Development Labs do: good open source citizenship and sharing do: acknowledge community values don’t try to push development without participating and contributing Volunteer, decentralized, large community do: support community (public acknowledgement) do: acknowledge community values do: be aware of licensing policies do: in case of a problem, do-it-yourself don’t: use the software against the license terms risk: internal tensions risk: hard to keep deadlines Table 1. Do’s and don’ts for companies collaborating with different kinds of communities. 8 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Open source community sustainability evaluation As several studies on OSS communities indicate, open source communities do share some common characteristics (male dominance, relatively high level of education), but are also different in important respects. For instance, the developers of Eclipse and MySQL are as a trend roughly ten years older than those of GNOME and Debian. Also the motivations for participating in OSS development are different (for details, see Mikkonen, Vainio & Vadén 2007). Consequently, in open source business we need tools to assess the risks that the various communities face. Recognising some of the bottle-necks of community growth and sustainability will help a long way in establishing fruitful co-operation and managing open source business risks. Below, the evaluatory factors of the open source community risk profile are grouped in four sets, cultural, social, legal and economic. Social sustainability of a community relies on the individual characteristics of its members, on its size and form, and the division of labour and power in the community. Cultural sustainability of a community is defined by its traditions and history that create and shape its social and ethical norms and practices. While social sustainability is a matter of interaction between individuals, cultural sustainability is something that is created during a longer time period as the community matures. The importance of legal risk management in the OSS world has risen sharply during the last decade. The economic significance of software has drawn also the attention of the legal community and as the result the risk of getting sued for patent or copyright infringement is today very real. Finally, economic sustainability is one matter in volunteer based communities, and quite another in communities led by strong companies. However, for both extremes the problem of resources is anything but solved, and different models are constantly evolving and experimented with. Based on the current understanding and findings of the OSSI-research project, the following check list for identification of open source community characteristics and risks can be presented. Social dimension . Are there more than 20 active developers? 2. Does the community have a trusted main developer? . Does the community have developers with high technical skills? . Is the project cool enough the attract new developers? Cultural dimension . Does the community have a charter that defines the common principles and goals? 2. Is the development process open and inclusive? . Does the community have members who participate for ideological reasons? . Does the community have members that work for pay? Legal dimension . Does the community have legal expertise? 2. Does the software use a major open source license? . Does the software handle legally risky topics (p2p, encryption etc.)? . Does the economic footprint of the community attract law suits? Economic dimension . Is the maintenance of technical infrastructure on a sustainable basis? 2. Is some of the development work funded by companies? . Are some companies dependent on the community? . Does the community have funding for conferences and workshops? Table 2. Check list for defining open source community sustainability. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Evaluation of open source software A reasoning to use open source software as a part of business has two sides, internal and external. Usually most of analysis focuses on external issues, for instance how to select the best piece of software or how to assess the viability of a particular community. However, internal issues may play vital role in succeeding implementation of open source. Internal analysis should start with recognizing current and future needs. Questions that are useful in recognizing the reasons behind selecting open source software are, for example, the following: • Analyzing time scale and urgency • How soon the output should be on market? • What is the overall life cycle of the output? • Analyzing firms own resources and competences • What competences you need to a) select b) acquire c) maintain a software (this issue relates closely to outsourcing/purchasing) • How much resources you are able to invest for this issue? • Analyzing the reasons to use open source software • Can you recognize your explicit and implicit motives? • Why it is a strategic decision? • What are the main drivers? • What is the proposed use: are you going to use that particular piece of software in experimenting, piloting or production? • Analyzing the status of relevant information • Do you know what you do not know? • Analyzing the future • When the decisions are made, what consequences will follow? An assessment task is about tradeoff between accuracy and time (i.e., money). Depending on answers on the questions above, one should make decisions what will be the needed level of information. An analytical and detailed approach may be too time- or resource- consuming when the software is just being experimented. In the OSSI- project four evaluation tools for assessing Open Source products or projects were identified as the “best-of-breed”: • Optaros’ Enterprise Readiness (ER) model • Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) by B. Golden • Model for Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software (QSOS) • Business Readiness Rating (BRR). The project concludes that using a method like BRR is recommendable when a maturity of OSS is under evaluation. The value is not only in the final result the method produces, but the process itself. It gives a structured way for investigating the software product. The final number indicating the maturity does not reveal some risks of the software. On the other hand a small number definitely reveals that the product is not mature. The lessons learned by using the existing evaluation methods led the research group to believe that a two-step evaluation is necessary. The user-role and intended use have a tremendous effect on how the software, the community and the interaction should be approached. Not only are communities different from each other, also the user-roles necessitate various types of analysis and involve different types of risks. 20 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Conclusions and recommendations The OpenNordic project (as we ended up using as project name) has delivered an extremely valuable contribution in the work to tap the OSS value potential in the Nordics. The project has created a number of Nordic meeting places for players usually operating primarily on a national basis: • The national OpenSource Competency Centers • Public sector representatives at both national and regional levels. • Universities with OSS related education and research spanning academic areas from sociology, law, economic, business administration to computer Science • The ICT Business Associations and their OSS related networks • Politicians influencing: - the development of ICT sector and specifically the software industry - How the public sector buy, develop and support the software behind all the new digital public services. Most of these meeting places will survive the project and make a permanent contribution to Nordic collaboration. Still some of them needs to be fed and nurtured by new projects in order to reach critical mass. The project has effectively demonstrated how national strengths can be built into Nordics strengths by open collaboration and sharing of software, competencies, research, events and conferences. We have also been able to build a joint Nordic brand, OpenNordic, holding the potential to add a joint Nordic identity to OSS related work by vendors, users and academia and helping the Nordics be more visible on the global arena . The projects have identified a number of areas where future collaboration will make a big difference. The key cooperation areas and their specific challenges are illustrated below. Collaboration area Key challenge Who could participate Political focus on the OSS Move current strong political support in Governments, Nordic council, Public opportunity for the Nordics- Norway to more countries and make the agencies both as builders of an advanced Norwegian political support more robust. public eService offering and as a business case for increased software based export. Sharing of code for use in Only a small fraction of code shared in The national Competency centers private and public sectors current repositories are being used and in collaboration with OSS vendor and building of sustainable enhanced because they lack an active association, developer and user communities around the code community and an ecosystem . We communities and related Research and need to learn more involved actors the Education institutions best practices of building a sustainable community/ecosystem Procurement of software based Current procedures, buying cultures Governments, public agencies and solutions in public sector and competencies of public purchasers bodies. are keeping OSS based solutions and vendors out of the public sector OSS related education and A nonexistent and at best a very Nordic Universities and University research fragmented offering in an area where the Colleges, research institutions in biggest growth barriers is the availability technology, social sciences, economic of talents and business development. Venture Capital interest and Lack of insights into OSS related business Business angels with experience in OSS. funding availability models, practices and strategies VC associations, ICT associations. Strengthening the OpenNordic A large portion of the OSS related events Current “owners” of the OpenNordic brand and establish more and networks are national only. This brand; primarily the competency permanent transnordic events reduces our ability to make Nordic and centers, the ICT associations and the and communities global collaborations succeed in the current networks controlling key OSS global arena events. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration 2

22 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX 1: Summary of WP Responsible and Deliveries The project has organized in 5 workpackages (WP) Work package 1 Project administration and management Main Responsible: COSS Finland ( creating a website and a repository, gather and structure data) and IKT-Norge Norway (reporting to NIC and organizing meetings) Other responsible: All partners must contribute Work package 2 Create a repository of business models best practice of OSS projects in the Nordics Main Responsible: Foreningen for open source leverandører (OSL) Denmark Other responsible: All partners must contribute Work package 3 Create a virtual Nordic code sharing site. Main responsible: The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and the Federation of Swedish County Councils. Other responsible : All partners must contribute Work package 4 Developer networking Main responsible: COSS, Finland Other responsible: All partners must contribute Work package 5 Nordic conference and public relations Main responsible: IKT-Norge, Norway Other responsible: All partners must contribute PLANNED DELIVERIES WP1: Project administration and management WP2: Create a repository of business models best practice of OSS projects in the Nordics Find and structure development projects in the Nordics Host Nordic meeting where criteria of success are being agreed upon Host Nordic conference on the subjects Host Nordic conference on OSS companies and funding with Nordic VCs WP3 Create a virtual Nordic code sharing site. Host Nordic workshops on the aspects of sharing code in general, and the public sector in particular Publish and spread experience and knowledge on ongoing work on sharing software repository in Sweden, done by SALAR. Explore the code sharing initiatives in the Nordic countries Connect the Nordic repositories in to create a common structure Collaborate with different repositories in EU and participate in establishing the EU-repository, an initiative by IDABC. Host Nordic workshops on the different aspects of sharing intellectual property developed and owned by the public sector. WP4:Developer networking Information about relevant and successful developer communities in the Nordics. Host Nordic meeting where criteria of relevance and success are being agreed upon Host Nordic conference for OSS developers from relevant communities WP5: Nordic conference and public relations when: during whole project Give media et al information on the progress of the project. Have joint Nordic press conference at least two times during the projects. Focusing on the deliverables from the projects and the overall status of OSS in the Nordics. Host a conference at the end of the projects where business, public, sector, and politicians are invited together with represetatives from media. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration I

APPENDIX 2: Business models for open source and nordic collaboration A business-model for exchange of software and knowledge 1 Results of large survey on Danish software use and perceptions 2 The use of operating systems 5 Software applications 7 Decision parameters 8 General decision parameters 9 Operational reliability 10 Flexibility 10 Security 11 The decision-making process 14 Pros and cons 16 Summary of the study 18 Collaboration among the suppliers and consumers – Supplier-driven sites. 18 The Danish Software Exchange. 19 Better Software 20 Breaking barriers 20 Custom applications creates interaction 20 A design framework 21 Conclusion 21 A business-model for exchange of software and knowledge The purpose of this paper is to investigate and evaluate business models for the development of a joint Nordic hub for open source software. In Denmark the possibilities for this has been researched during a 2006 survey of perceptions of and inhibitors to the use of open source software. The results gathered from this research wil be presented in this paper along with the experiences of the Danish Software Exchange and the business model it is based on. There are many aspects to be aware of when developing a business model to use in a market of open source software. First of all the participants in the market must all have a net gain from their actions. If not, then there are no incentive to participate. These gains can be economic gains, but also more subtle gains, ie. prestige etc. If the market are to function well, there is a need for the participants to have an incentive to return there and keep supplying their knowledge and activities. Therefore the marketplace should be an engine for ongoing contact among the different agents in the market and not only a single-use place. Based on the observations mentioned above, it is important to tie the users of the marketplace together both crossing the national boundaries and the ordinary supplier/customer relationship. This argument will be further explained below – also backed by the results from the survey as described in the next chapter. Results of large survey on Danish software use and perceptions In the recent years increasing attention has been given to the field of open source. EU has been involved in the FLOSS- project1) , which has contributed a large number of studies of structure and engagement within the market of open source software. The FLOSS-project has examined the market for open source in a number of different countries in relation to use of software and general attitudes towards the different types of software licences. The studies, carried out in 2001 – 2002, have uncovered many aspects of both public and private companies use and opinions on open source software. Furthermore, the companies’ opinions on pros and cons of the use of the software have been uncovered. Subsequently, the FLOSS-project has developed the FLOSS-POLS-project which, at the moment, is examining the effects that the use of open source software has on different areas of European society. ) See more about FLOSS at http://flossproject.org II The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The FLOSS-POLS describes their research objective as follows: ”The FLOSS project (funded by IST/FP5) resulted in the single largest knowledge base on open source usage and development worldwide, and filled some of these gaps, at least in our understanding of the economic and development models behind open source. Not enough knowledge exists, however, in the critical area of policy formation: the impact of policy choices on open source, and the effect of open source on available policy options and government actions are not well known. The support action builds on the FLOSS project to fill in important gaps in the understanding of open source with a focus on specific gaps in the policy application domain.” 2) FLOSS-POLS want to analyse the following aspects: • evaluating government policy on open source • understanding gender issues in open source • modelling open source as a system for collaborative problem-solving The studies in this project are still running but already now there is a large amount of data at disposal concerning the use of open source software in public organisations, and development of experiences and skills in relation to open source. Further studies in relation to the use of open source in the public sector have been carried out in Sweden, where the applicability of publicly developed software must be distributed by sharing the developed software as open source. ”Computer software that has been developed with tax revenues should be used to benefit as many citizens as possible. Those responsible for developing this software should also participate in distributing the benefits to others. Promote co-ordination and diffusion of computer programs among public authorities by making this software ‘open source’!3) The Swedish project analyses the possibilities and legal implications of issuing publicly developed software as open source. This analysis has been continued in research from another project financed by the EU called Public Sector & open source software (PS-OSS).4) The project analyses the effect it would have on society and software development if public authorities issue their software as open source, and whether open source in general, is the best method for knowledge sharing and exchange of software. In a working paper from November 2006 these questions are thoroughly dealt with by real examples from different parts of Europe. The studies that have been mentioned, which are all running or have been completed, have contributed substantially to the overall knowledge about the use and potential of open source software. To support and build the knowledge of incentives and strategies, a supplemental study was carried out in Denmark. The purpose of this study is to uncover what incentives companies have, as a basis for their choice and use of software. Why have they chosen the way they have, and do they have any thoughts about change of strategy? The study was carried out in spring 2006 in March and April. A total of 8,000 possible respondents were drawn out for the customer study. After treatment of data and elimination of branches, duplicates etc., 7,764 possible respondents remained. From these, 779 companies chose to answer the questionnaire. This means that the response rate of this study is just above 10%. For this study respondents were chosen on the basis of their primary trade association, the way it is registered in the Danish company registry. To get a picture that reflects the situation in Denmark, it has been aimed to target the questionnaire study at a group of respondents that has the same trade distribution as Denmark in general. In 2004 there were 282,968 registered companies in Denmark.5) This means that the questionnaire study includes answers from 2,75 ‰ of Danish companies. Statistics Denmark divides companies in lines of businesses according to different systems. The most superior system is called the 9-breakdown and breaks the Danish companies down, as the name implies, into 9 lines of business. In the table below, the relation between all Danish companies and the respondents of the study is shown. 2) From http://www.flosspols.org/outline.php ) From http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=20 ) See more on http://www.publicsectoross.info/ ) Statistics Denmark – Statistikbanken.dk. The number for 200 is the most recent available number. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration III

Distribution of lines of business for companies All companies 200 Actual respondents Line of business Number Percentage Number Percentage . Agriculture, fishery and extraction of raw material , .% 28 .% 2. Industry 8, .% 00 2.8% . Energy and water supply , .% .% . Building and planning 28, 0.2% .7% . Trade, hotel and restaurants 2,0 2.% 2 .7% . Transport, post and tele ,7 .2% 28 .% 7. Financing and business service 8,7 2.% 8 .% 8. Public and private services 8,7 .7% 20 0.8% . non-informed activity / Other 0.2% 87 2.0% Total 282,8 00% 77 00% Source: Statistics Denmark – Statistikbanken.dk, and own numbers. As seen in the table above, there are similarities but also differences between the line division in the questionnaire study and in the official trade statistics. This imbalance could be due to respondents having to state their line association themselves, and that it has been chosen to include all public organs to ensure a high response rate from this part. This causes a certain possibility of error since part of the companies haven’t been able to, or had knowledge about, their own line of business as regards stating their association in relation to the 9-breakdown, which is seen in the very large response rate of “Uninformed activity / Other”, by the respondents. In the illustration below, the numbers from the above table are illustrated. Distribution of lines of business in the questionnaire study compared to general line of business statistics The line of business numbering refers to the numbering in the table above Source: Statistics Denmark – Statistikbanken.dk, and own calculations. Again, it appears that there are certain differences. A source of error could be, that there are differences between the lines of business in relation to how inclined they are to answer questionnaires. It is obvious that respondents from the public organisations (group 8) have been diligent respondents compared to the primary producers in group 1 that haven’t answered to as high a degree. More than 30 percent of the study’s respondents are from group 8 that includes public and private services. This covers the total public administration and a large number of public and private service trades. Again, it must be underlined, that there are more public organisations in our sample than the correspond- ing share in Denmark. Because of the somewhat uneven distribution compared to the general distribution of lines of business in the country, analyses within lines of business must be seen in the light of the distribution of answers that appear. With the above reservations concerning division in lines of business, the results of the study will be covered in the following. IV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The use of operating systems In the preface of the questionnaire, basic information about the company’s choice and use of software is obtained. Generally, it is abundantly clear that Microsoft’s products have an incredibly large user base, and that the use of the Windows control system is incredibly widely distributed. The information in the study for both desktop computers and servers is seen in the two illustrations below. Distribution of operating systems on servers Distribution of operating systems on desktop computers Source: Own calculations Source: Own calculations As seen in the illustrations above, Windows is dominant in Danish economic life. For desktop machines, which are ordinary computers which the major part of office users have access to, the dominance of Windows is most pro- nounced. 80% of respondents state, that the primary operating system on desktop computers is Windows XP. To this, 13% is added which use Windows 2000; 2%, that uses Windows NT and 2% that use earlier Windows-versions. In total this becomes 97% of desktop computers in Denmark to have some kind of Windows installed as the primary control system. At the same time, this results in only 3% of desktop computers in Danish companies having other control systems than Windows installed on their computers. This includes the control systems on Mac-computers and also Linux and other open source control systems. For servers in Danish companies a picture also appears of great dominance of different Windows versions, with the server system Windows 2003 as the predominant system. This system accounts for 33% of installed control systems on the servers. The different versions of Windows account for at total of 88% of the server systems. Consequently, the ”alternative” systems, that is, all other systems than Windows, have a larger share of the server market than the desktop market for Danish companies, but despite this, it is a market that is very much dominated by products from Microsoft. Software applications Besides control systems, as described above, a computer needs some applications to run on the control system to give value to the user. In the questionnaire study, the software is categorized in relation to the share of proprietary or open source software. In the questionnaire study, the respondents have been asked what types of software they use primarily, on their computers. In the illustration below the distribution of the companies’ use of different types of software is shown. Distribution of software types on servers and desktop machines. Source: Own calculations As seen in the illustration above, there is a strong tendency for both servers and desktop computers, to use software products owned by suppliers or that are proprietary. The difference between the server and desktop market is not so big when it comes to the use of the different types. The main difference is that a greater share of open source software is used on the servers, whereas a larger share of specially developed software is used on the desktop machines. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration V

Besides the above mentioned information on the use of software, the respondents have been asked about their use of software in general. With this is meant which composition of software types they use within the company, on an overall level. General use of software types Number Percentage Software owned by suppliers, only 8 .% Software mainly owned by suppliers and some open source programs 277 .% Even distribution between open source and software owned by suppliers 8 .2% Mainly open source software and some programs owned by suppliers .% Open source software, only 2 .% Source: Own calculations The table shows that despite the indication in previous illustrations of solid dominance of software owned by suppliers, open source software is used to a greater or lesser extent in approximately half of the respondent companies. At the same time, it is only approximately half of the respondent companies that don’t use open source software at all. This means that the use of open source software does exist in Denmark even though it must be assumed that most of the products have been installed on computers that use Microsoft Windows. Decision parameters In relation to the companies’ choice of software, it is interesting to examine which parameters that form the basis of the decision. In a number of questions in the questionnaire, the companies are asked about the degree of influence of different parameters. The different parameters are divided in a number of general questions and in the categories ”operational reliability”, ”flexibility”, ”security”, ”support” and ”strategy”. Within each category, a number of questions are asked that can all be answered on a scale with the options ”none”, ”low”, ”some”, ”high” or ”very high” influence. The total reply matrix looks like this: No Low Some High Very high influence influence influence influence influence No % No % No % No % No % General Purchase price . 0 . 77 8. 20 2.8 . Running costs 7 .7 8.2 08 . 278 .7 8. Development costs 0 . 2 . 2 2. 202 2. 0 . Licence expenses 7 .7 0 . .8 2. 2 8.0 Expenses for administration of licences 7 2. 2 27. 27 .0 2 . 2 . Operational reliability Uptime and stability 2. 2 . 80 0. 2.7 0. Fast error recovery 2 . . 0 8.0 .7 87 2.0 Few code errors in the software 0 . . 7 22.2 .0 20.7 Flexibility Possibility of adjustment to and integration with . 7.2 207 2. 0 0 0 8.0 companies’ former systems Possibility of further development of the software 8 7. 2.7 2 27.7 2 . . in relation to companies’ future demands Problem free exchange of documents and data .0 8 0.8 78 22.8 02 8.8 2. with extern partners Independency of suppliers 77 . 2 27. 27 . . 2 . Security Data security, eg. at breakdown 2. . 0 .0 . 2 . Resistance to virus/worms 2. . 8. 0. 2 . Resistance in relation to hackers, attack etc. 7 2.2 . 20.0 282 .2 28 . Possibilities of encryption and complying with 2 . 0 . 220 28.2 20 0.8 8. security standards Support Possibility of support from supplier 20 2. 7.2 20 2. 2 .8 0 . Possibility of support from other companies than .0 2 . 2 .0 2 . 7 . the supplier Immediate use of internal support resources 7 .7 0 . 277 . 2 . 8 0.7 Immediate availability to employees 2 2.7 72 .2 28 .8 0 .2 0 .0 (No training necessary) Strategy The software is continuously developed further 2. 7. 2 . 2 . .8 The software supplier is an established company 2 . 8. 2 27. . . with a good reputation VI The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The table above shows a number of different responses of decision parameters of the companies that have participated in the study. No distinction has been made between companies on the basis of size or line of business, but instead on the total picture. The table assists in giving an overview of the factors that are important to the companies in relation to the choice of software. The single categories will be covered shortly below. The given percentages are given in propor- tion to the total number of respondents. General decision parameters The general decision parameters cover more factors that, in many cases, are directly available in the form of purchase, working and development expenses. The general picture of the company’s evaluation of these parameters are, that the declarations reach their summit at ”some influence”. Distribution of preferences for general decision factors Source: Own calculations The distribution is shown in the illustration above. The distribution of answers is clear. From the companies’ statements, on the basis of the study’s result, it is concluded that direct expenses for purchase, operations and development are not the primary decision parameters for the companies’ choice of software. The companies that choose to evaluate the parameters in the general group as being of very high influence are generally very small companies of 10 employees or less.6) There is an indication that these companies are more directly dependant on the size of immediate costs and for that reason, choose to evaluate their choice of software on this basis. Operational reliability The category of decision parameters concerning operational reliability concerns the company’s dependence on their IT systems and their requirement that the systems are available at any time. These parameters may be more important to a company that gets its income on the basis of services based on the use of IT, than to a company that only sporadically uses IT. Distribution of preferences concerning for decision factors concerning operational reliability ) Own calculatinos on the basis of the study’s results. Source: Own calculations The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration VII

As the above distribution shows, the three given factors are factors which the companies assess to be of high influence on their choice of technology. Particularly the factor “long operational time and stability” shows a very high preference as a total of 83% of respondents state, that long operational time and stability has a high or very high influence on their choice of technology. Flexibility To a company it can be necessary to adjust the IT-systems to the specific applications that the companies have. Further- more, for many companies it is important to be able to communicate electronically with customers and collaborators. Distribution of preferences for decision parameters in relation to flexibility Source: Own calculations The illustration shows the distribution of responses on four different parameters for the flexibility of the software. The companies have answered on the basis of how important they state the four factors to be, in relation to their choice of software. In comparison to the two previous illustrations, this distribution is more “flat”. This means that the answers are more evenly distributed on the 5 choices. The three parameters given with dark blue, purple and yellow colour respectively follow each other gradually with approximately 35-40 percent of the respondents stating, that they believe that the three factors have a high influence on their choice of software. The illustration shows that the curve for ”Independency of suppliers” is different from the other three curves. This curve is interesting because it shows how highly they weight the possibility of avoiding lock-in, and the possibility of being inde- pendent of single suppliers. The companies mainly assess this factor to be of lower influence on their choice of software than the other factors in this category. 19.6 percent believes that independency is of high influence and only 5.4 percent believes that independency is of very high influence on their choice. A total of 37 percent of respondents believes that the independency of suppliers is of low or no influence on choice of software. For that reason this factor is not assessed by the companies, to be of high importance to the choice of software. Security As internet has become widespread and most computers are connected, attention and measures to avoid break-ins and abuse of the systems have been intensified, and security is now an important argument for the purpose of selling and advertising. As the illustration below shows, security is also a parameter which the companies in the questionnaire study assess as important in relation to their choice of software. Data security and resistance to vira and attack are the three factors stated by the companies to be of highest influence on their choice of software. For the three factors it is seen that an average of approximately 73 percent of the companies state, that the factors are of high or very high influence on their choice of software. It is also seen that approximately 45 percent of the companies state, that the security of the software against loss of data in connection to breakdown is of high influence. For that reason, this factor is of particular importance to the companies. VIII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Distribution of preferences for decision factors concerning security Source: Own calculations The decision factor concerning ”encryption and compliance to security standards” has not been assessed to be of same influence on their choice of software as the three other factors. The highest statement is the approximately 30 percent of the companies which have stated “high influence”. For that reason security, in the form of encryption and secure internal and external communication, is not as big a focus point as the other stated factors. Support A software product does, in most cases, not only comprise of a piece of software on a CD ROM or something that is down- loaded from the internet. When purchasing software there is usually a need to establish a support agreement to ensure help soon after any problems that may arise with the software or training of the company’s employees. For that reason, support is another factor for the companies to take into account when they choose which software to purchase. As the illustration below shows, the factors in the support category are something which the companies mainly weight as being of “some” to “high” influence. The possibility of getting support directly from the supplier of the software is especially important, since a little more than 60 percent of the companies state that this is of high or very high influence on choice of software. The companies’ possibility of getting support from other companies than the supplier is not so important. More than 20 percent of the companies state that extern support is of no, or low, influence. Distribution of preferences for decision factors concerning support Source: Own calculations Strategy This category of factors includes just two different factors which, summed up, is called “strategy”. This is connected to the fact that companies have to secure themselves in relation to the investments they make. If a company chooses to invest in a software product, it is necessary to make sure that the software won’t be hopelessly out of date within short time, and that the software comes from a firm or consortium that will keep supporting the software, and in that way stimulate the further support and development of the product. As the illustration shows, the strategy factors are important but are not of top priority. Between 40 and 45 percent of the companies state, that the two decision parameters are of high influence on their choice of software. The two curves accompany each other nicely concerning the influence categories, and it is worth noting the considerable fall from 40-45 percent with ”high influence” to only approximately 15 percent with ”very high influence”. This means that the companies in the study weight the strategic parameters highly but it can’t change their decision on choice of software. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration IX

Distribution of preferences for decision factors concerning strategy Source: Own calculations Generally about the results The numerous illustrations shown above illustrate how the companies in Denmark assess their choice of software. Generally about the illustrations it can be said that all the given factors have a bias against high and very high influence. This supports an understanding that a company’s choice of software is based on a high number of evaluations about the qualities and possibilities of the software. The companies in general want a software product from a reliable supplier that develops the program further. The software has to be reliable as regards operations and operational time and there has to be good possibilities of support, preferably from the supplier. It is, from the viewpoint of the company, of less importance that the software implies that the company becomes dependent on products from a single supplier instead of having the possibility of choosing between several. Besides the functional and strategic evaluations of software, Danish companies also make evaluations of software on other levels. This could be influence from other companies, friends, family and many other things. These factors are covered in the next section. The decision-making process Decision-makers in Danish companies are people that have to make decisions that could have a considerable effect on the economy and survival of the company. An investment in software and the technology belonging to it, has to be made on the basis of the qualities and attributes of the software. The problem is how these qualities are evaluated. There are many different factors that have an influence on the choice of software. The companies have, in the diagram below, stated to what extent their decision is based on different factors. Statements of influence on the decision-making process To a very To a low To some To a high Not at all high degree degree degree degree No % No % No % No % No % Thorough and systematic studies of pros and cons of every single alternative before 7 .0 2.2 8 0.8 2.8 0 . the decision is made The company’s prearranged principles for 2 . 8 . 2 2. 28 .7 7.8 the IT-architecture Immediate impressions of, and others’ 22 2.8 88 . 0 .0 0 .2 .2 experience with similar products Testing of the software on a small scale and 8. 2 2. 27 .8 8 2. . subsequent evaluation Source: Own calculations X The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The table above shows the respondents statements of which measures companies take, in order to support their decision- making process. In the same way as in previous sections, I have plotted the answers in an illustration which is shown below. Influence on the decision-making process Source: Own calculations The illustration shows to what extent the decision-makers are influenced by different factors in relation to their decision- making process concerning choice of software. The respondents in the questionnaire study have been asked to evaluate 4 different evaluation scenarios, and in relation to these state to what degree they fit to their decision-making process. As the illustration shows, the factors that stand out in relation to influence are the factors concerning the company’s established IT-architecture and the immediate sense of the decision-maker – and others’ experiences with the same software. It is also surprising that testing of software within the company does not affect the decision-maker to as high a degree as own feeling and others’ experience. Consequently, it can be stated, that if you want to sell a software product to Danish companies you shouldn’t base your launching and campaign by trying to convince the decision-makers the product is worth putting money on, instead of focusing on functionalities and contribute to product tests. A good network of people to recommend the software is an important tool for a software producer to promote their products. Pros and cons Most decision-makers in Danish companies have, already before the have to evaluate the software, an opinion about the relation between open source and proprietary software. A number of questions in the study are aimed at identifying these opinions. For the two development models a comparison have been carried out to discover the pros and cons of each of the models, as it is viewed by the decision-makers. The questions in this section have been asked in such a way that the respondents have had the possibility of marking their opinion as both open source and proprietary software independently of each other. Advantages of different development models Source: Own calculations The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XI

The parameters which the respondents have given as advantages are shown in the illustration above. An outline of the disadvantages of the different types of software is seen in the illustration below. In the illustration above it seen that there are substantial differences between the perceptions of the two software models. There are no factors where the development models have near the same response frequency. This has to mean that the decision-makers in Danish companies often have preferences for either one or the other development model. The results in the illustration divide in two groups: One where the open source software is evaluated to have the largest share of advantages and one where the proprietary software appears most favourable to the respondents in the study. The advantages which the respondents have mainly evaluated to be most for the open source software are the two furthest to the left in the illustration above. These are ”lower total cost” and ”higher flexibility”. This means that the immediate perception is that open source software leads to savings and better possibilities of integration. On the other hand, open source software scores very low in the remaining categories in the illustration. These factors concern the access to support, documentation and qualified staff and also the reputation of the producer and the general quality of the software. The respondents in the study have stated that open source software is a considerable problem, compared to proprietary software regarding support and documentation – Something the companies find very important. Consequently, here is a challenge for the open source world if it wants to win further market shares in the future. Where the open source software has more advantages compared to proprietary software, is in relation to pricing and flexibility. I have previously shown that flexibility is an important point for the companies in the study, but regarding pricing this is really just a minor advantage since pricing isn’t of relatively very high importance to the company. Disadvantages of different development models Source: Own calculations If you look at the statement of disadvantages, a picture emerges that the Danish companies have a clear impression of how the two development models are different to each other. In five out of six categories there is broad agreement whether it is open source or proprietary software that has the biggest disadvantages. In the category ”Lacking user-friendliness” there is more similarity between the development models, however, with the evaluation that open source lag behind proprietary software as regards user-friendliness. Proprietary software has been assessed to have the most disadvantages in relation to administration of licences, lock-in and price structure, by the Danish companies. These factors are partly those that can also be seen in the previous illustration where open source is seen to have the most advantages – in the categories concerning costs and flexibility precisely. The categories where proprietary software is evaluated to have fewer disadvantages than open source are generally the categories where simplicity and accessibility appear. The companies assess open source software to be difficult to use and difficult to assess the quality of. These are factors that can contribute to proprietary software keeping its wide prevalence despite the licence structure for open source software being easier to manage, and that the software in general is more affordable. XII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Summary of the study The above covers the most important results in the Danish study on the basis of recieved answers. The results are calculated on the basis of 779 answers of a questionnaire on the internet. The most important results give an indication of the big predominance of proprietary software with the Danish companies that use IT and IT-services. Especially the proprietary products from Microsoft have many users. In the customer study the incentives and arguments of the companies when choosing software have also been examined. Finally, the decision-makers in the Danish companies have been asked about their immediate perceptions of pros and cons in relation to the two development models; open source and proprietary software. The impact onto the marketplace for open source software will be described in the following. Collaboration among the suppliers and consumers – Supplier-driven sites. In the market analysis a number of interesting factors were uncoveret. These must be taken into consideration with regards to the instigation of the Nordic network. It appears that there are a number of obstacles that causes public and private companies choice of software not to be made on fair terms, because the information that have to be present in order to make an objective choice are not present in the market of today. Through results from the survey it has become clear that both decision-makers in the companies and the advisers need advising and guidance in the form of information and decision tools, when decisions about choice of software need to be made. An important result from the study is moreover, that the information that customers and suppliers want, must include possibilities of assessing pros and cons of the software mentioned. Furthermore, services to assess the quality of software, is wanted, since this is one of the points which respondents stated to have difficulties in finding. Besides a need for informational services, software users also wish for guidance and concrete contacts to companies that can help them make decisions, implement solutions or support their existing installation. The consumers want to be sure that a company can be found that is ready to take on the role and obligation it is to support a product. Many respondents have stated that the reason they choose proprietary software or software owned by suppliers is, that they want to be able to approach an attached contact for support and advising – A situation that is only seldom seen on the market for open source software. Generally matching between consumer and product and also between consumer and supplier, is an area for which there will be great demand. 60 % of the respondents in the customer study have answered that open source software will be part of their considerations in relation to future investments in software. From the ones that answered that they won’t include open source software in future investments, approximately half answered that they would nevertheless consider open source, if there were certainty about qualified support of the chosen solution. Consequently, this survey has contributed to the knowledge base on the market for open source software. We now know a lot more about the background for the choice of software and which influences decision-makers are exposed to. By using this knowledge we have the possibility to adjust the services and information at disposal, on the future portals in the countries behind this project. As this paper mentioned in the introduction, there is a need for a living marketplace that can provide the services and give the information that both suppliers and consumers need. The viability of the marketplace can be maintained if the suppliers and consumers are interdependent in order to gain from their participation. In this manner, there will be a sustained activity towards the medium that the marketplace consists of, whatever i may be; portal, exchange etc. The Danish Software Exchange. In order to achieve the goals that an open source initiative is aiming for, the Software Exchange, that the Danish Ministry for Science and Technology, has been created using the recommendations from the survey. The portal softwareboersen.dk hosts the Software Exchange which is a hub for software-sharing among public bodies in Denmark as well as a meeting place for customers and suppliers of open source services. Better Software In 2006 the National IT and Telecom Agency in Denmark, a department under the Ministry of Science and Technology, gave out the task to develop a community of public IT-managers for exchanging software and experiences. A secondary purpose was to provide contact between software-providers and existing and potential users of open source software. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XIII

The portal provides a synergy effect for suppliers and users through the inclusive community it serves. The exchange of experiences, knowledge and kompetences provides a foundation for further development and improvements of the solutions already in use in government organisations. Thus the public organisations can achieve more ”value for money” which again creates a better incentive for investment in solutions based on open source software. The openness and approachability known from the world of open source bocomes a general term in the market. Breaking barriers To target the uncertainty on the quality of open source software solutions, which is a significant barrier to public bodies’ selection hereof, the Software Exchange tries to eradicate this uncertainty, which is largely based on the absence of unbiased information. The Softwareboersen-portal gives the decision makers of public Denmark the basis for their evaluation of the different possibilities in the software market, through the interaction of suppliers and users. Custom applications creates interaction The creation of the Software Exchange made it possible for users to approach the site depending of their expectations. Users can engage in contact with the individuals or businesses who has the competencies or experiences demanded. The Software Exchange creates a level field for all actors in the software market and thereby facilitates the decision process for all public sector IT-managers. The portal encourages open and interactive communication amongst the different usertypes. All users, approved by the webmaster, can edit the site site and update their own information. The site offers an array of different modules or services available to the user according to their individual needs. At the same time, these modules collects relevant information and distributes this throughout the site. In this way suppliers, developers and public institutions are connected with each other through the Software Exchange. One of the technical challenges in the development of the Software Exchange was to have the many modules of the content management system Plone, working together to give users an experience of an integrated system within the framework of the site. The result was an advanced website that provides knowledge, information and interaction in an easy to use format. A design framework The Software Exchange has been developed so that the overall design and visual identity as well as the structure of information is subjected to a wish of maximum usability. This is easily seen in the choice of a simple and inviting design, easy-to-read typography and a low number of options on the central pages of the site. The use of colours are chosen to support the functionality of the site. Easy recognition of the colours enhances the user friendliness with regards to identification of navigation and options. Conclusion This paper has presented a proposal for a business model for provision of open source software on a Nordic scale. The proposal is based on extensive research on the Danish market for software. The assumptions have also been tested through the development and use of the Danish Software Exchange. The main results from these efforts are that a well functioning market for open source software must give users an incentive to keep coming back to the marketplace and that the link between users and suppliers is very important to nurture and stimulate. This way the marketplace will gener- ate increased confidence in open source software and the establishment of open source software as a real alternative to the common software in use in the majority of the market at present. XIV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX 3: Study on the use of Open Source Software in the Norwegian Software Industry, Conclusions In Norway the Norwegian gouvernement encourages the use of Open source (both through the Soria Moria-declaration and by the establishing of The Norwegian National Innovation Center for Open Source). But even though open source has recieved a lot of attention in Norway as elsewhere, little was known about the actual proliferation of open source software in Norway. As a result a report on the use of open source software in the Norwegian software industry was published in 2008. The report is based upon a survey carried out in the fall 2007 by the Departement of Computer and Information Sciences at the Norwegian University of and Science and Technology (NTNU)1). The two most important concerns in the Norwegian report were the extension of the use of open source software in Norway, and secondly, the reasons for adopting or using open source. Firstly, the authors found that nearly the half of the norwegian software enterprises in question use open source software components in their developing, and as they stressed this is by all means a considerable amount. Open source software is being used in both small and larger products with a broad area of functionalities. These products is being delivered to customers within every business sector. The study also indicated a more frequent use of open source within software consultancies than enterprises purely directed towards software development. The authors see this as a natural consequense of two possible explanations, the one being that the software suppliers often live selling of products and by licencing, whereas consultancy companies to a larger extend provide services connected to the development of applications. Secondly the suppliers are typically directed towards a homogeneous markets, focussing only on one or few products - consultancies, on the other hand, participate in the developement of a long range of solutions for a varied group of customers. The use of open source is somewhat more frequent within larger companies than in smaller ones, which the authors relate to the fact that larger companies often have a whole range of products thereby taking on a broader spectrum of assign- ments. In addition to the this, larger enterprises simply have more employed personel, thereby enhancing the possiblity of somebody having prior experience with open source. As for the second main focus of the Norwegian report (i.e. the reasons for choosing open source software components in software development), the authors found that open source is used mainly because it gives access to components of a high standard functionality, who contributes to highten the quality of an end product most often by being tested by a relatively large number of users (who ordinarily give frequent error reporting feedback). Furthermore the absence of licence costs together with a reduced work amount contributes to a reduction of development costs. Somewhat surprisingly the market demand for open source and among customers, on the other hand, has little or no effect upon the use of open source. The authors point to the lack of knowledge and difficulties assesing the qualities of open source products as possible explanations for this2). The decision and selection of open source products is more often than not infomally chosen, and components with a positive history are often used over and over again. New components are often found through informal recommendations or via search engines and portals providing open source software. According to the Norwegian study contributions to the open source community from the Norwegian software industry were relatively moderate, due to its being driven mainly by individual efforts - and only secondly by enterprises (although some enterprises do watch the open source software world closely in order not to loose sight of possible new components). Components which are trusted and tested are often integrated without further evaluation – when new components are actually evaluated this takes place with regard to the reputation and activity of the component within its respective ecosystem (often hereafter a prototype or test installation is developed in order to prove functionality). However, in the evaluation ) http://research.idi.ntnu.no/oss/NTNU_friprog.pdf The study was carried out in 2007 and is based upon a screening proces with answers from more than 700 Norwegian enterprises, a survey containing answers from firms and interviews with system developers from Norwegian enterprises. 2) The authors point to another Norwegian study (also mapping the use of open source software in Norway), by the Norwegion National Innovation Center for Open Source, the NUUG foundation, IBM and LinproThe study is as of yet unpublished, but the main conclusions are available in overview at http://linmag.no/article/articleview/2//7/ The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XV

process component properties are more essential than the ecosystem providing it: The component must offer nescessary and stable areas of functionality, its licence must be in harmony with the intended use and it has to be easily applicable by the developers. This entails high standard developer documentation, flexibility, known technology and simple integration with other components or systems. In general easing the work burden of a developer and the simplification of his work is of the essence here. The developers who answered the quetionnaire had to a little or no difficulties finding, assessing and using open source software components. In addition to this software developers claim that open source software reduces the over all life time cost of their products. Perspectives for a Joint Nordic Hub for Open Source Software The Norwegian study is not immediately comparable to results of the Danish study and for a more thourough comparison between the two studies a consideration of the differences between the two countries (juridicial, institutional, ways of doing business etc.) as well as the methodology behind the two studies (e.g. differences in scope, terminology etc.) would be needed. But regardless of any possible discrepancies between the two reports, the Norwegian report seems to be pointing in the same general direction as the Danish survey. The conclusions of the Norwegian study seem, at least in a very general fash- ion, to be in accordance with the result of the Danish survey, regarding the decision making process and the parameters for chosing open source solutions: Open source solutions is primarily chosen due to questions of reliability and stability, economy and flexibility. In trying to sum up the conclusions of the Norwegian study and pin their relevance to a joint Nordic hub for open source software, several points of relevance can be made. First of all, the fact that developers have little or no difficulty finding, assessing and using relevant open source components may be the least surprising of the reports conclusions – it must be assumed that knowledge regarding open source within this group is at its largest, that the pros and cons of open source software be well known and maybe also that it is within this group that open source software poses the most immediate benefits. In the context of this paper the important question must be how to get past this level and expand the knowledge and use of open source software to a further audience. Secondly, when looking upon the whole decision making process it is strikingly informal, individually driven and based upon excisting networks and ecosystems. The larger the networks the larger the possibility of finding individuals with the nescessary knowledge of open source software. Initially software is often chosen on the basis of reputation and the assessment of a third party outsider, and only secondly upon testinstallations or thorough investigations of ones own. However, once adopted, evaluation and assesment of component quality is based upon software properties rather than the ecosystem. Thirdly, and maybe more importantly, customer demand does not seem to provide and incentive for the proliferation and expansion of the use open source software. This again, seems to emphasize the need for a supplier-driven forum for furthering the collaboration between suppliers and consumers as described and suggested above. Viewed in connection with the fact that open source is often chosen informally, that the decision making proces is often individual driven and based loosely upon networks and ecosystems makes this process rather fragile. And it points to the need for a framework that does not evaporate, when individuals with the propper knowledge and the accidental network are no longer there to drive forward the use of open source software. A transindividual frame providing the nescessary continuity without loosing the beneficial aspects of an informal decision-making process - that is, creating a certain interde- pendency between suppliers and customers without forever locking the two together in an unbreakable bond. XVI The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX 4: Survey Q1 q2 Business models q3 Own words business models q4 Own words ecosystem q5 Join ecosystem Contact Q1 OSL test Mediamaisteri Opinsys Nomovok Wasalab Cubical Solutions Oy Tietoteema Quosis CC Systems Magenta Casalogic A/S Ange Optimization Fab:IT Symfoni Software Code3 headnet eZ Systems Oracle Gaiaware Trolltech ASA LinPro Nexus Consulting Redpill AB Curalia AB imCode Partner AB RedBridge AB Cendio AB Resight AS Business models Open Source and Service 20 71.4% Mixed 9 32.1% Open Source and Buy Off 3 10.7% Open Source and Aggrevation 10 35.7% Open Source and hardware 8 28.6% Total 28 178.6% The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XVII

Own words business models Mainly Moodle housting which is then connected to training and consulting. Wide range of services and consulting for the school sector, compare to building/construction consult, process development with technical solutions (computers, infrastructure, LTSP’s) Integrating OS-components intergrating and fixing OS components together, then offering hosting and service for that entity, also development work for certain OS-components Integrating OS-components, developing close components working with open source components, training services Hosting and consulting services, integration and development of open source components Main business is to offer Alfresco solutions as a Alfresco partner, services related to that; consulting, hosting, training, configuration. Also OS intergration and Liferay services. Open components as a part of their own products, embedded Linux solutions, We sell support and services -both around our own software and other open source software. Consulting company earning money from installation, support, maintenance and education around IT infrastructure based on Open Source We develop software for clients that they would have developed internally had they had an internal software developing organization. The clients do not care if the software is free software or not. We primarily sell system management to customers running Open Source software like LAMP, Samba, firewalls and other popular stuff. We grab the software, install it on our or the customers server, configure the software to the specifications required by the customer and the solution is then ready for production. We offer additional services like backup, surveilance and reporting and advanced security based on OSS. We provide customers with proprietary software and services. Our solutions does support open standards and interoperability with open source software as well as proprietary software. We use open source software/libraries when developing custom-made solutions for our customers. We understand the customers domain. We get paid for the development/consulting based on the above. Developement, consultancy, education and hosting of wellknown open source CMS (Plone) We are selling our expert knowledges through maintenance and support packages, professional service offerings and education services. Oracle’s revenue is based on software licenses, Oracle Consulting services, Oracle Support and Oracle University Dual lincence model where commercial developers must buy a commercial licence and non commercial users can down- load developent tool for free. Dual licence model. Development tool licenced under GPL available to noncommercial users and commercial licence of same software is available to commercial users. Sell services related to OSS delivered to customers and aggregates OSS elements into customer specific solutions. Model is based primarily on selling consulting, development, service and support. Builds solutions on top of eZ Systems Enterprise Open Source CMS and sell developmen, training, support services to customers. Also develops it own pripårietary add ons to the platform and tdistributes these in the eZ Ecosystem Consulting services that leads to a subscription and / or a supportagreement. We see support ans subscriptions as the key features in our businessmodel We use open source product to integrate and design business critical solutions for our customers. So the main part of our revenue comes from service and support. We also reuse solutions for other customers to make a win win business. Cost for product maintanance and sailes are also reduced by using open source and cooperation with customers We sell support contracts with fixed rate e-mail support, additional phone support hours, training, and adpation of software to clients needs. Financing of our own OS software is done partially by joining a nukber of clients (eg developmentcost 100k = 5 clients x 20 k), partially as own investment. RedBridge main business is infrastructure consulting like Pre-studies, Proof of Concepts, implementations, deployment of Open Source and Mixed source. We are also provide Open Source helpdesk and support. Combined open soucrce code with propertary code, offer a great solution to the market. Revenue in licens fees, maitenece, support, consulting and education. All revenue stems from support services and guantees. Services include bug, fixes, delivery of new functionality and different types og help and support packages. These are classiefied according to service levels like respons and fix times. XVIII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Own words ecosystem Active participation to the Moodle project community work in Finland, Mediamaisteri’s ecosystem includes also 3-4 smaller companies, now bigger companies interested to work with the project too working with the communities (mainly Linux distros), 4-5 software companies around them from the different areas (IT-services, hardware suppliers) ersonnel involved in open source projects as an individuals, next year’s trend is to build an ecosystems around partly their product and get companies involved releasing development work for the community, fixing bugs, working together with small IT-companies with same area in Finland (as an weak network) not much contributing to the community, earlier more contribution, not much co-operation with other companies especially within the OS projects, actively involved with Adempiere community and SSLexplorer and some other ones, localisation , trying to create a company network for bigger projects with shared interface Closely working with Alfresco community, contributing, working as a Finnish partner. Working with few companies as partners not much contributing, co-operation with other companies with Linux-based components 2-3 smalle companies -enmd 2-3 large mixed companies. We are partners with main suppliers of Open Source based infrastructure products, e.g. Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu etc As the customers do not case whether the software is free or not, our ecosystem is the existing ecosystems surrounding the free software we use. We use several pieces of popular OSS, and regularly donate or sponsor projects. We support interoperability with open standards and open source software because we believe that this will eventually become a customer demand in the future. Our consultants contibrute to open source projects that we use. We find and report bugs, make patches and answer questions in forums. An example is: JBoss JBPM -we used it to model and implement a customers business process. Another example is: Mule ESB, we used that as frontend to an existing system, making that existing available to a lot of other systems. We use some of the other Plone developers modules/code/examples in our projects. When we doing generic functions we try to give them back to the community. We attend sprints and our employees blogs to tell about inventions and methods Our community is centered around our Open Source products and we are encourage partners and customers to participate to develop the ecosystem. Oracle’s Open Source activities: http://oss.oracle.com/index.html Building software developing consultant houses as partners. They do not pay for the development tools, but their customers do when buying software. large ecosystem of Open Source(noncommercial)developers and commercial software development houses and consultancies. Very active in OSS work in scandinavia, but has not developed their own community. Owns two other OSS daughter companies, Skolelinux and Oberon. Key member of the eZ Ecosystem, gold partner We have a wide variety of business going on both in Public sector and in large private companies, the main areas is Middle- ware, Enterprise Content Management and in diffrent business solutions such as CRM. Our ecosystem is mainly built around the customer and the delivered solution. For example we have solutions together with The Swedish National Heritage Board for the area of heritage and the historic environment. Member and initiator of Open Source Sweden (business association), partner with a number of OS companies, subcontrac- tors to some, main contractor to others. We are promoting Open Source and selling subscriptions of commercial Open Source. Cendio uses different open source project and then mix it with own propetary code to offer the market a great solution. Cendio is active in various open source projects and deliver code into these projects. part of a development community and ecosystem og other companies with minimum 10 contributing developers spread accros 3-5 companies/partners and customers. Join ecosystem Just call and tell the interest, then an evaluation whether it is a competitor or a co-operator Just call and tell the interest, then evaluation if there is value for everybody All are welcome co-operation possible when same goals and own special areas, misusers of OS components not welcome looking for capable partners for a company interested in co-operetion, the direct face-to-face contacts are a must Contacting, need to have good competences companies who has e.g. special OS-components for linux welcome to the network The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XIX

Open They would build knowledget around a number of products that suplement each other and start selling services around these products. To join the ecosystems we are part of, join the email lists, submit bug reports and fixes, pay developers to fix bugs that are not critical to the company. As we are not developing software, joining is difficult. Serviceproviders could engage in strategic partnerships with us providing complementary services to our products/services. ? We dont have our own ecosystem. We contribute to other companies/organisations/foundations ecosystems. sponsoring conference, make documentation, contribute with code, attend sprints, talk about Plone whenever they can It is simple: just visit our web site and participate in of the many forums. To do so you have to get a login. Please see: http://oss.oracle.com/index.html Register at the homepage of Gaiaware, Fully outomated process. Go to www.trolltech.com and register Do not have an ecosystem visit eZ.no and the partner page. Our partners should be businessdriven acting in the field of Professional Open Source. We have no special model for that Use our product, give us a call. Or tell us what OS products you deliver and how they fit into our system. I do not understand the question. Please explain? They should send an e-mail to post@resight.no stating their will to joint the community. They could also contact PHP Group- ware. Contact Morten Kjærsgaard Interested in co-operation (Timo Väliharju timo.valiharju@mediamaisteri.fi) jouni.lintu@opinsys.fi pasi.nieminen@nomovok.com juhani.puska@wasalab.com henri.ranki@cubical.fi antti.kari@tietoteema.fi pasi.pietikainen@quosis.fi marko.elo@cc-systems.com Morten mortenk@magenta-aps.dk Torben Soerensen / tss@casalogic.dk Ole Tange ole@ange.dk Eske Rasmussen eske@fab-it.dk Leif Lodahl: leif.lodahl@symfonisoftware.dk jr@code3.dk sune@headnet.dk Just visit our web site, get a login or write an email. Jan Cordtz jan.cordtz@oracle.com Stian solberg sales@trolltech.com Betran Maugain bm@ez.no Carl J Antonsson / carlj.antonsson@redpill.se gert-ake.wennberg@curalia.se info@imcode.com Jonas Feist, Director of Sales, mobile +46-706033324 Daniel Moosberg daniel.moosberg@cendio.com post@resight.no XX The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX 5: An Example of a Supplier-driven site: The Danish Software Exchange In order to achieve the goals that an open source initiative is aiming for, the Software Exchange, that the Danish Ministry for Science and Technology, has been created using the recommendations from the Danish 2006 survey. The portal softwareboersen.dk hosts the Software Exchange which is a hub for software-sharing among public bodies in Denmark as well as a meeting place for customers and suppliers of open source services. In 2006 the National IT and Telecom Agency in Denmark, a department under the Ministry of Science and Technology, gave out the task to develop a community of public IT-managers for exchanging software and experiences. A secondary purpose was to provide contact between software-providers and existing and potential users of open source software. The portal provides a synergy effect for suppliers and users through the inclusive community it serves. The exchange of experiences, knowledge and competencies provides a foundation for further development and improvements of the solutions already in use in government organisations. The Software Exchange works as a publicly accessable software library with open source software and as a market where suppliers can compete on market terms selling open source software related services, because of an accessible source code of the projects published. For suppliers this entails an encreased group of possible custumers and users of open source software. At the same time organisations acquiring software is offered an unhazardous acquisition as well as the possiblities of further development and support. The organisation is’nt tied to a single supplier or vendor of software, able to dictate prices and terms of use. Fundamental barriers to the use of open source is removed and the risk of being tied to a single supplieris significantly diminished. Thus the public organisations can achieve more ”value for money” which again creates a better incentive for investment in solutions based on open source software. The openness and approachability known from the world of open source bocomes a general term in the market. To target the uncertainty on the quality of open source software solutions, which is a significant barrier to public bodies’ selection hereof, the Software Exchange tries to eradicate this uncertainty, which is largely based on the absence of unbiased information. The Softwareboersen-portal gives the decision makers of public Denmark the basis for their evaluation of the different possibilities in the software market, through the interaction of suppliers and users. The creation of the Software Exchange made it possible for users to approach the site depending of their expectations. Users can engage in contact with the individuals or businesses who has the competencies or experiences demanded. The Software Exchange creates a level field for all actors in the software market and thereby facilitates the decision process for all public sector IT-managers. The portal encourages open and interactive communication amongst the different usertypes. All users, approved by the webmaster, can edit the site and update their own information. The site offers an array of different modules or services available to the user according to their individual needs. At the same time, these modules collects relevant information and distributes this throughout the site. In this way suppliers, developers and public institutions are connected with each other through the Software Exchange. One of the technical challenges in the development of the Software Exchange was to have the many modules of the content management system Plone, working together to give users an experience of an integrated system within the framework of the site. The result was an advanced website that provides knowledge, information and interaction in an easy to use format. The Software Exchange has been developed so that the overall design and visual identity as well as the structure of information is subjected to a wish of maximum usability. This is easily seen in the choice of a simple and inviting design, easy-to-read typography and a low number of options on the central pages of the site. The use of colours are chosen to support the functionality of the site. Easy recognition of the colours enhances the user friendliness with regards to identification of navigation and options. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXI

APPENDIX 6 Open Source Business (Models) 1) Open Source + Service What it means: Companies sell support and services around open-source software. Who’s doing it: Compiere (ERP), JBoss (middleware), Red Hat (Linux) Advantages for CIOs: You pay only for support, not software. The cost to switch providers is relatively low because the source code is available to anyone. Startup challenges: Difficult to build businesses because switching costs are low, as are barriers to entry. CIOs will always favor large, established vendors over startups unless the startups also control code development. Hard to get venture funding because venture capitalists are looking for sustainable competitive advantage in their investments. Unless the software is complex or mission-critical, CIOs may choose to support it themselves. 2) Mixed What it means: An open-source code base with proprietary add-ons. Who’s doing it: Sourcefire (security), SugarCRM Advantages for CIOs: CIOs may not need the proprietary stuff, but if they do they’ll already have acquired deep experience with the open-source product before buying the add-ons. Startup challenges: There’s ample motivation to make the open-source product inferior to the proprietary package, trans- forming the open source into trial software. If that happens, there may be a backlash among open- source developers and users wanting to see all the code. 3) Open Source + Buy Off What it means: Companies offer a proprietary license for their open-source software so that users can modify the software and redistribute it without having to make the code changes available to the public. Who’s doing it: MySQL (database), Sleepycat (database) Advantages for CIOs: The open-source software has all the features of the proprietary version. Startup challenges: Sales of the proprietary version are limited mostly to those companies that want to redistribute it as part of their own hardware or software packages. 4) Open Source + Aggregation What it means: Companies assemble various open-source software packages into integrated units that are easier for CIOs to consume. Who’s doing it: Exadel, Navica, SourceLabs, SpikeSource Advantages for CIOs: Simplifies open-source integration and support. Startup challenges: Barriers to entry are low, brand differentiation is difficult, lack of ownership of open-source projects limits the influence of the company in the development of the code. 5) Open Source + Hardware What it means: Hardware makers use open source as the foundation for the software that runs their machines. Who’s doing it: Cisco, Digium, Netezza, Nokia Advantages for CIOs: Lower prices on hardware. Startup challenges: It’s difficult to differentiate on hardware alone, especially when CIOs are looking to standardize their infrastructure Mikko Puhakka XXII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX 7 Glossary of Open Source Software Terminology This glossary contains terms that are commonly used when discussing Open Source Software. C Community: Group of people sharing na common goal or interest. Often these communities interact via the internet, discussing ideas, sharing knowledge and creating software. Almost every Open Source project has its own community. D Distribution: Hundreds of Open Source projects are writing software to perform certain tasks. Although they form a strong network, each of these projects is just responsible for its own software. Special organisations bundle all these different applications for use by others. They often add an installation program and configuration tools to make life easier for the user. These bundlings are commonly referred to as distributions. F FLOSS: Free/Libre/Open Source Software, the term most commonly used when talking about either Free (Libre): Software or Open Source Software. G GNU: Recursive acronym for “GNU’s Not Unix”. The GNU project aims to provide a complete Unix operating system, which can be freely used, copied and modified according to the principles of Free Software. GNU/Linux: An operating system based on GNU, using Linux as its kernel. K Kernel: The core of a system. Linux is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system. L Linux: The term “Linux” is used to represent different things, depending on the context: • Kernel: in its pure form, Linux is only the kernel of an operating system. • Operating system: Most commonly the Linux kernel is used as the core of the GNU system. This entire system is called GNU/Linux, but is often abbreviated to just “Linux”. • Distribution: There are several distributions of GNU/Linux provided by different organisations. People who say they “run Linux” often mean they installed one of these distributions on their computer. O Open Source: This term can represent different things: • License rules: A set of rules which a software license must comply to in order to be called “OpenSource”. Click here for a list of these rules. • Software license: A license that complies to the forementioned set of rules. Such a license is called an “Open Source license”. • Project: A group of people working on a software product that is licensed under an Open Sourcelicense. • Software product: Software licensed under an Open Source license. The product itself is referred to as an “Open Source product” or “Open Source Software”. S Source code: The human-understandable texts that programmers type to write applications. The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXIII

APPENDIX 8 PROGRAM OP E N nordic Conference 2008 June 19-20, Skien, Norway Welcome to the Open Nordic Conference eZ Systems, ICT Norway, National Center for Open Source and ICT Grenland welcome you to 3 different, but still very related conferences. They are all related to open source and promoting the use of free software. 1. Open Nordic Conference - Open Source Software and the use of open standards. 2. eZ Conference & Awards - The eZ Ecosystem and Enterprise Content Management. 3. Open Nordic Mobile - Developing Open Source business with mobile solutions. Speakers There are several speakers of international acclaim who will be at the Open Nordic Conference. Terrence Barr Time: Senior Technologist Thursday, 11:30 Sun Talk: Future of Java on mobile phones Track: Open Nordic Mobile Jean Gondè Time CTO Thursday, 15:00 Lagardère Talk: Global Enterprise Content Management Track: eZ Media James Hewes Time: Head of International Development Thursday, 15:35 BBC Talk: BBC Online Media Publishing Track: eZ Media Dag Wigum Time CIO Thursday, 16:10 Shibsted Talk: How Open Source is Affecting the Media Industry Track: eZ Media XXIV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Bård Farstad Time CTO Thursday, 16:45 eZ Systems Talk: Open Source Technology Entrance in Online Digital Media Track: eZ Media Henning Sund Time Departement Manager Friday, 10:50 Edda Media Talk: Online Digital Media at Edda Media Day: eZ Media Espen Andersen Time Associate Professor, BI Friday, 13:00 Department of Strategy and Logistics at the Norwegian School of Management (BI) Talk: Disruptive technologies - open source on mobile Track: Open Nordic Mobile Paul Chaffey Time CEO Friday, 14:55 Abelia Talk: Mobile applications making the world flatter Track: Open Nordic Mobile Program day 1 Thursday 19th. Thursday 19th of June 2008 Track Track 1: Open Nordic Track 2: eZ Media Track 3: eZ Best Practises Track 4: Open Nordic Mobile Room Peer Gynt Terje Vigen Eyolf (sublevel) Hedda (sublevel) 08:00 Registration Registration Registration 08:30 Welcome for eZ Partners 08:40 eZ Partner workshop (Room: Terje Vigen) 09:00 WORKSHOP 0900-12:00 “Opening the mobile track” Telenor R&I, Trolltech & Wireless Future Open collaboration on a Nordic Open 09:15 Source master program. “Nokia on open source” Chair: Tor Lønnestad, Ass. professor, Keynote: Mikko Terho (Nokia) University College of Telemark. 10:00 Part 1: Presentations on current activities Break on selected Universities in the Nordics 10:10 “An overview of the open mobile landscape” 09:00 - OSS teaching and research at Uni- Hilde Lovett (Telenor R&I) versity of Skövde, Sweden by Bjørn Lundell (chairman of Open Source Sweden) 10:40 Break OSS teaching and research at University of Agder, Norway By Janis Gailis (Ass. 10:50 “Mobile Developers Toolbox” professor University of Agder) Else Nordhagen (Telenor R&I) 10:00-10:10 - Break 11:20 10:10 - OSS teaching and research at Uni- Break versity of Oslo, PhD student Ola Titlestad 11:30 10:40-10:50 Break “Future of Java on mobile phones” Part 2: 10:50- 12:00 Panel discussions Keynote: Terrence Barr (Sun) 12:00 Lunch Lunch 12:30 Lunch for eZ Partners 13:00 Grand Opening (Room: Dovre) Heidi Austlid Arnesen, CEO Norwegian OSS Competency Center together with Aleksander Farstad (CEO, eZ Systems) 13:10 Main keynote: “Open standards in real life” (Room: Dovre) Bart Hanssens (CTO, Belgian Federal Government) 13:50 Break 14:00 “Get your projects shared!” eZ Keynote: “The Content Management market from an enterprise open source perspective” (Room: Terje Vigen) “Open phones” Mads Östling (SE OSS Center) Aleksander Farstad (CEO, eZ Systems) Ole Tange (OpenMoko) Heidi A. Arnesen (CEO NO OSS Center) Morten K. Hansen (CEO DK Software Exch.) The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXV

Else Nordhagen (Telenor R&I) 11:20 Break 11:30 “Future of Java on mobile phones” Keynote: Terrence Barr (Sun) 12:00 Lunch Lunch 12:30 Lunch for eZ Partners 13:00 Grand Opening (Room: Dovre) Heidi Austlid Arnesen, CEO Norwegian OSS Competency Center together with Aleksander Farstad, CEO eZ Systems 13:10 Main keynote: “Open standards in real life” Peter Strickx (CTO, Belgian Federal Government) 13:50 Break 14:00 “Get your projects shared!” Track TrackOstling (SE OSSNordic Mads 1: Open Center) eZ Media “The Content Management market3: eZ eZ Keynote: from Track 2: an enterprise open source perspective”TrackPeer Gynt)Best Practises (Room: Track 4: Openphones” Mobile “Open Nordic (Open Moco) Heidi A. Arnesen (CEO NO OSS Center) Aleksander Farstad (CEO eZ Systems) Room Peer Gynt Martin Grønbæk (CEO DK Software Exch.) Terje Vigen Eyolf (sublevel) Hedda (sublevel) 14:45 Break 15:00 “Expanding your business by using the “Global Enterprise Content Management at Lagardère” “Discover the possibilities of eZ Publish” “XUI, future GUI on mobile phones“ Open Nordic shared repository” Jean Gondé (CTO, Lagardère) Christian Lundvang (Nexus) & Andreas Aardal Hanssen (Trolltech) Anders Liling (REDPILL) Frank Dege (silver.solutions) 15:25 Break 15:35 “BBC Online Media Publishing” James Hewes, Head of International 15:45 Break Development at BBC Break 15:55 “200 billions EUR saved by using a reposi- “The near future of eZ Components” “Spectrum of open source research at NTNU” tory style development” Derick Rethans (eZ Systems) M. Letizia Jaccheri (NTNU) together with 16:00 Christian Lanng (IT & Telestyrelsen, DK) Break student Eskil Sund 16:10 “How Open Source is affecting the Media Industry” Dag Wigum (CIO, Schibsted) 16:40 Break 16:45 “OSS, a strategic resource to “Open Source Tech. Entrance in Online Digital Media” “Scalable eZ Publish Hosting” grow your business“ Bård Farstad (CTO, eZ Systems) Paul Forsyth (WebDeal) Anna Ö. Rönnbäck (Linkøping University) 17:10 “Open Funding - Opening the process of Break funding collaborative innovation projects” Vidar Top and Tor-Arne Bellika (TOIC) 17:30 eZ Keynote: Expert Panel - The future of Online Digital Media (Room: Terje Vigen) 19:00 eZ Awards Cocktail Reception 20:00 eZ Awards (Room: Dovre) 21:00 - 01:00 Post Awards Party - End of day one 15:55 “200 billions EUR saved by using a reposi- “The near future of eZ Components” “Spectrum of open source research at NTNU” tory style development” Derick Rethans (eZ Systems) M. Letizia Jaccheri (NTNU) 16:00 Christian Lanng (IT & Telestyrelsen, DK) Break 16:10 “How Open Source is affecting the Media Industry” Dag Wigum (CIO, Schibsted) 16:40 Break Program day 2 16:45 “Open Funding - Opening the process of funding collaborative innovation projects” Vidar Top and Tor-Arne Bellika (TOIC) “Open Source Tech. Entrance in Online Digital Media” Bård Farstad (CTO, eZ Systems) “Fragmentation of devices - can open source help?” Panel discussion 17:10 Break Friday 20th. 17:30 eZ Keynote: Expert Panel - The future of Online Digital Media 19:00 eZ Awards Cocktail Reception 20:00 eZ Awards Track 21:00 - 01:00 Track 1: Open Nordic Track 2: eZ MediaPost Awards Party - End ofTrack 3: eZ Best Practises day one Track 4: Open Nordic Mobile Room Peer Gynt Friday Terje Vigen 20th of June 2008 Eyolf (sublevel) Hedda (sublevel) 09:00 Main keynote: Adam Jollans, IBM (Room: Dovre) 09:45 Break 09:55 “Seed and Venture Capital workshop” “Benefits and challenges wth Web TV at DN” “Energy Saving Trust Case Study” “Mobile Games” Chaired by Mikko Puhakka Gunnar Lier (Editor in Chief) Tony Wood (VisonWT) Knut Yrvin (Trolltech) together with students, Oisin John Mackeow & Trond Grefsrud 10:40 Break 10:50 Previous session continues... “Bold, brave, free” “Oracle and eZ” “Creating an open environment for Henning Sund (Departement Manager, Edda Media) Harald Løvvik (Oracle) & Gaetano Giunta (eZ Systems) mobile payment” Lars Hoff (Telenor R&I) 11:30 Break 11:40 Previous session continues... “Using eZ Publish as a Digital Asset Management System” “eZ Publish on demand” “Open Standards, Web 2.0” Bernard De Groot (CIO, SanomaWSOY) Jostein Håvaldsrud (CTO, Mamut) Thomas Hansen (Gaia) 12:10 Lunch 13:00 “Governing the use of Open Source” “The challenges for small & medium publishers” “eZ Publish status” “Disruptive technologies - open source on Martin Michlmayr (hp) Veronica Zimmer (Director, Children’s house) Paul Borgermans (eZ Systems) mobile” Espen Andersen (BI) 13:45 Break 13:55 “On track with Open Green Software – Tutorial: “Building an Online Magazine with eZ Flow” “eZ Components in a technical view” “Fragmentation of devices saving MEUR 100” Nicolas Pastorino (eZ Systems) Tobias Schlitt (eZ Systems) - can open source help?” Ole Morten Killi (Bouvet AS) Panel discussion Booklaunch: “Selling Open Source – how to do it” E. Vidar Top (TOIC) 14:40 Break 14:55 Main keynote: Mobile applications making the world flatter (Room: Dovre) Paul Chaffey (Abelia) 15:40 Break 15:55 Student panel (Room: Dovre) 17:00 End of day two XXVI The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

eZ Awards categories > Community member of the year > Contribution of the year > Partner of the year > Rising star of the year > Publication of the year > Site of the year > Project of the year > eZ Components Award > Most valuable individual contribution to Open Source Software in the Nordics > Most valuable company contribution to Open Source Software in the Nordics > Most valuable contribution to Open Collaboration Culture in the Nordics > Honorary award Travel information Train www.nsb.no + 47 815 00 888 Taxi www.grenlandtaxi.no + 47 35 55 34 24 Flight (Sandefjord) www.torp.no + 47 33 42 70 00 Flight (Oslo) www.osl.no + 47 06400 Contact info eZ Contact info Ibsenhuset Phone: + 47 35 58 70 20 Phone: + 47 35 58 13 30 Web: http://conference.ez.no Web: http://ibsenhuset.no The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXVII

Reliability, Stability, Power... Premium hosting services for your business critical websites Dedicated Servers Premium Shared Hosting eZ Publish Remote Backup Oslo • London • San Francisco www.webdealhosting.com XXVIII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX 9: PRESS FACSIMILES The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXIX

XXX The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXXI

XXXII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXXIII

XXXIV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

madcoil.com

Nordic Innovation Centre The Nordic Innovation Centre initiates and finances activities that enhance innovation collaboration and develop and maintain a smoothly functioning market in the Nordic region. The Centre works primarily with small and mediumsized companies (SMEs) in the Nordic countries. Other important partners are those most closely involved with innovation and market surveillance, such as industrial organisations and interest groups, research institutions and public authorities. The Nordic Innovation Centre is an institution under the Nordic Council of Ministers. Its secretariat is in Oslo. For more information: www.nordicinnovation.net Nordic Innovation Centre Phone: +47-47 61 44 00 info@nordicinnovation.net Stensberggata 25 Fax: +47-22 56 55 65 www.nordicinnovation.net NO-0170 Oslo Norway

End Report Project 06222 Open Nordic

by IKT-Norge

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

End Report Project 06222 Open Nordic Document Transcript