A model of open source developer foundations [OSS 2012]

Comments

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1. User-led Open Source Consortia, Defined – Software Research and the Industry

   2021-11-08

   […] open source foundations can be split into user-led and developer-led foundations. The difference, in line with open source licenses, is in the use-case: User-led foundations […]

   Reply
2. Current Open Source Publications of General Interest – Software Research and the Industry

   2018-08-21

   […] Dirk; Berschneider, Sebastian (2012). A Model of Open Source Developer Foundations. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2012). Springer […]

   Reply
3. 

   Andrew

   2012-07-20

   This is great. The PDF file is so informative and well narrated. It gives you an idea and all basic details required for your foundation and needs. Appreciated 🙂

   Reply
4. 

   Mike Linksvayer

   2012-05-31

   Good paper, I learned some things!
   http://webmink.com/tag/open-by-rule/ seems like a complementary analysis
   It’d be interesting to see Software Freedom Conservancy and Software in the Public Interest described by the model developed — they are somewhat different in being homes potentially for any free software project; ASF is the nearest thing analyzed, but is quite different eg on the governance and operations categories. Could also be extended to foundations hosting open collaboration projects that aren’t primarily software; most prominently Wikimedia Foundation.
   Among the foundations analyzed, there’s a 1:1 correspondence between purpose and incorporation, and between proprietary software stance (see below) and project license; it’d be interesting to know how the model development process concluded those categories should remain 4 rather than 2 nevertheless.
   Finally a nit, I think the only category where naming and descriptions change from the model to the description of various foundations by the model is also the most politically contentious one — Commercial Stance (Free Software Enforced, Commercial Software Allowed) becomes Open Source Stance (Free Software, Open Source). Neither is entirely accurate (the first, “commercial” should be “proprietary”; the second, I don’t know how to fix — but the same description ought be used both places).

   Reply
   1. 

      Dirk Riehle

      2012-08-10

      Oh no, you caught a bug! (And why am I reading your comment only now, sorry!)
      So, it should be “commercial stance” all the way – that was based on the final iteration’s feedback, when people objected “open source stance”. The issue addressed is “do you allow for any business model or only a subset of the possible business models?”
      Lets see whether I can still get this fixed in the publication.

      Reply
   2. 

      Dirk Riehle

      2012-08-10

      Also, one nit pick from my side 🙂 Proprietary does not mean it can’t be open source, it only means there is one proprietor. Thus, MySQL is proprietary open source…

      Reply