Fundamentals of Free and Open Source Software


Published on

Introduction to the OSS Watch Business
and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software. this presentation doesn't deal with the business models, it introduces FOSS and the key licence types.

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Fundamentals of Free and Open Source Software

    1. 1. Business and Sustainability Models Around Free and Open Source Software OUCS, 12 January 2009 Event tag: ossw_fosssustain2009 Hashtag: ossw
    2. 2. <ul><li>Housekeeping
    3. 3. Who are OSS Watch?
    4. 4. </li></ul>[email_address]
    5. 5. Objectives for the day <ul><li>Understand the varying licensing and community models that underlie free and open source sustainability models.
    6. 6. Have a greater familiarity with the most commonly-employed sustainability models.
    7. 7. Recognise where FOSS exploitation strategies may be of value. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Fundamentals of Free and Open Source Software Ross Gardler Slides adapted from a deck created by Rowan Wilson
    9. 9. What we will cover: <ul><li>What is FOSS?
    10. 10. Some history
    11. 11. Varieties of FOSS Licence
    12. 12. How a FOSS project works </li></ul>
    13. 13. What is FOSS? <ul><li>Software
    14. 14. Software License
    15. 15. Software development methodology
    16. 16. High Quality </li><ul><li>Linux, Apache HTTPD, Firefox,, XenSource, MySQL, SugarCRM, Alfresco </li></ul><li>Business model </li></ul>
    17. 17. What we will cover: <ul><li>What is FOSS?
    18. 18. Some history
    19. 19. Varieties of FOSS Licence
    20. 20. How a FOSS project works </li></ul>
    21. 21. Some History (Early days of software) <ul><li>Originally specialist software bundled with hardware
    22. 22. Source code supplied under permissive licences
    23. 23. Personal computers created a software market
    24. 24. Bill Gates writes open letter to 'Hobbyists' in 1976: </li></ul>“ Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share... Is this fair? ” <ul><li>Software was sold </li><ul><li>Some felt this was detrimental to software production </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. Some More History (A turning point - 1984) <ul><li>Richard Stallman commences GNU Emacs </li><ul><li>first software from the GNU Project (think GNU/Linux) </li></ul><li>Free Software Foundation (1985) </li><ul><li>committed to maintaining software 'Freedom' as both a pragmatic and political aim </li></ul></ul>Free as in Speech (liberty) not free as in beer
    26. 26. The FSF's Four Freedoms <ul><li>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
    27. 27. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
    28. 28. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour
    29. 29. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public </li></ul>
    30. 30. Yet More History (Birth of a divide – 1998) <ul><li>'The Cathedral and The Bazaar' </li><ul><li>Eric Raymond </li></ul><li>Netscape make their browser Free Software
    31. 31. Open Source Initiative founded (1998) </li><ul><li>Apolitical, business oriented explanation of the virtues of Free Software
    32. 32. Eric Raymond is first president </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Open Source Initiative <ul><li>Pragmatic approach to Free Software </li><ul><ul><li>Open Source term adopted </li></ul></ul><li>Focus on development methodology
    34. 34. Defines the Open Source Definition </li><ul><li>Derived from the Debian Free Software Guidelines </li></ul><li>Ten criteria for an open source licence </li></ul>
    35. 35. Open Source Definition <ul><li>Freely Redistributable
    36. 36. Source Code Included
    37. 37. Derived Works Permitted
    38. 38. Integrity of Author’s Source Code
    39. 39. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
    40. 40. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour
    41. 41. Distribution of Licence (Rights)
    42. 42. Licence Must Not Be Specific to a Product
    43. 43. Licence Must Not Restrict Other Software
    44. 44. Licence Must Be Technology-Neutral (no 'click wrap') </li></ul>
    45. 45. <ul>Open Source Vs. Free Software <li>Open Source Initiative: </li><ul><li>“ dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with 'free software' in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape.” </li></ul><li>Free Software Foundation: </li><ul><li>“ For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.” </li></ul></ul>
    46. 46. Open Source Initiative <ul><li>70+ accredited licences
    47. 47. Licence proliferation committee </li><ul><li>Reduce confusion
    48. 48. Retire “duplicate” licences
    49. 49. Categorise licences according to “importance” </li><ul><li>9 are 'Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities” </li></ul></ul></ul>
    50. 50. Any questions so far?
    51. 51. What we will cover: <ul><li>What is FOSS?
    52. 52. Some history
    53. 53. Varieties of FOSS Licence
    54. 54. How a FOSS project works </li></ul>
    55. 55. Varieties of FOSS Licence: Permissive <ul><li>Allow inclusion in non-FOSS software
    56. 56. Suitable where widest uptake is desirable
    57. 57. Examples of permissive licences are: </li><ul><li>Modified BSD
    58. 58. MIT
    59. 59. Academic Free
    60. 60. Apache Software Licence </li></ul></ul>
    61. 61. Varieties of FOSS Licence: Copyleft <ul><li>Derivative works, if distributed, must use same licence
    62. 62. Cannot be incorporated into n on-FOSS products
    63. 63. Suitable when desire is to legally enforce FOSS status
    64. 64. Examples of copyleft licences: </li><ul><li>GNU General Public License
    65. 65. Open Software License
    66. 66. Common Development and Distribution License </li></ul></ul>
    67. 67. Varieties of FOSS Licence: Partial Copyleft <ul><li>Derivative works, if distributed, use same licence
    68. 68. May be incorporated into non-FOSS products
    69. 69. Suitable in order to keep a portion of the work FOSS </li><ul><li>compromise between full copyleft and permissive </li></ul><li>Examples of weak or partial copyleft licences: </li><ul><li>GNU Lesser General Public License
    70. 70. Mozilla Public License
    71. 71. Eclipse Public License </li></ul></ul>
    72. 72. Varieties of FOSS Licence: Badgeware <ul><li>Only one 'badgeware' OSI-approved licence </li><ul><li>Common Public Attribution License </li></ul><li>Adaptation of Mozilla Public License ( partial copyleft)
    73. 73. Derivative must prominently display original author's details or organisation at runtime. </li></ul>
    74. 74. Any questions so far?
    75. 75. What we will cover: <ul><li>What is FOSS?
    76. 76. Some history
    77. 77. Varieties of FOSS Licence
    78. 78. How a FOSS project works </li></ul>
    79. 79. Copyright Ownership models <ul><li>Centralised ownership </li><ul><li>Copyright is owned by the project owner
    80. 80. Contributors assign copyright to project owner
    81. 81. Project owner releases under chosen FOSS licence </li></ul><li>Aggregated ownership </li><ul><li>Copyright owned by original authors
    82. 82. Contributors license their code to project owner
    83. 83. Project owner releases under chosen FOSS licence </li></ul></ul>
    84. 84. A Flawed Copyright Ownership model <ul><li>Distributed ownership </li><ul><li>Contributions individually licenced as FOSS
    85. 85. Common in the academic world </li><ul><li>Collaboration Agreements </li></ul></ul><li>Don't use this model </li><ul><li>Legal action against infringers hard to coordinate
    86. 86. Legal action against project requires coordination from defendants
    87. 87. Outbound licence changes require agreement from all </li></ul></ul>
    88. 88. Contributor Agreements and Governance <ul><li>Contributor Licence Agreements (CLA) required </li><ul><li>Solve problems of distributed ownership </li></ul><li>Can be a barrier to contribution so keep them simple
    89. 89. Well-run projects need a clear contribution policy </li><ul><li>what agreement is needed?
    90. 90. who can commit?
    91. 91. who decides what code is included in the release?
    92. 92. And more.. </li></ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>
    93. 93. Employees, Academics and Contractors <ul><li>Who owns “internal” contributions? </li><ul><li>Employment contracts
    94. 94. IP Policies
    95. 95. Consultancy contracts </li></ul><li>Default position is that: </li><ul><li>Employers own employees work
    96. 96. Contractors own their own work </li></ul><li>Academics often own their copyrighted work </li><ul><li>See contract and policies </li></ul></ul>
    97. 97. Versioning and IP Management <ul><li>Version Control software is critical </li><ul><li>Facilitates distributed team development of software
    98. 98. Track contributions and manage IP </li></ul><li>A critical tool in even a single developer project </li></ul>In OSS Watch's experience, many software development projects based in UK education have problems with recording ownership information accurately, leading to problems when the time comes to release. [email_address]
    99. 99. The Role of Community <ul><li>Open Source is a development methodology </li></ul>“ Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process.” - <ul><li>FOSS licences protect the development model </li><ul><li>Irrevocable licence
    100. 100. Open governance
    101. 101. Managed IP </li></ul></ul>
    102. 102. Is FOSS always Community Led? <ul><li>FOSS business models may not build community </li><ul><li>Some business models use FOSS as a marketing </li></ul><li>Does this matter? Do you believe the promise of FOSS? </li></ul>“ The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.” - <ul><li>Whether community is important or not is dependant on: </li><ul><li>your business model (Open Source), and/or
    103. 103. your ethics (Free Software) </li></ul></ul>
    104. 104. Any questions so far?
    105. 105. Thank you [email_address]