Free software, Open source software, licenses. A short presentation including a procedure for research software and data dissemination

Nowadays, Open Source Software (OSS) is widely used and plays a crucial role in the software industry. OSS development is a knowledge-intensive activity that requires very high levels of domain knowledge and needs to maintain the knowledge sharing environment. OSS project develop by the contribution of OSS members on its virtual community where every member can communicate and develop software together. To create new open source software needs the motivation of all members, the resources embedded in the relationship in community and the coordination of members as a virtual team to complete the OSS tasks. This study focused on the knowledge sharing in the OSS project community under the individual motivation, virtual community and virtual team perspectives. We analyzed 304 surveys collected from OSS communities and found that the extrinsic motivation, some perspectives of virtual community such as social interaction, identification and perspective of virtual team – team cognition have a direct impact on knowledge sharing of OSS project community. The study found that all the perspectives of virtual community have a significant impact on team cognition, and therefore have indirect effect on the knowledge sharing in OSS. Moreover, our results indicated that knowledge sharing has a significant impact on project performance. Implications for theory building, practical management and future research are also discussed.

Open-source software abbreviated as OSS is computer software that is available with source code and is provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software. For the commercial software the source code and certain other rights are normally reserved for copyright holders,i.e. the company who developes the software. A group of people in a collaborative manner often developes the Open source software, not under the roof of a large organization. This strategy makes open source software cheap, reliable and modifiable if needed. In this context we shall discuss mainly the features of Open Source Software, differences of open source and free software and open source software movement in Indian perspective.

Open source software (OSS) is computer software that has its underlying source code made available under a licence. This can allow developers and users to adapt and improve it (Raymond, 2001). Computer software can be broadly split into two development models: • Proprietary, or closed software, owned by a company or individual. Copies of the binary are made public; the source code is not usually made public. • Open-source software (OSS), where the source code is released with the binary. Users and developers can be licenced to use and modify the code, and to distribute any improvements they make. Both OSS and proprietary approaches allow companies to make a profit. Companies developing proprietary software make money by developing software and then selling licences to use the software. For example, Microsoft receives a payment for every copy of Windows sold with a personal computer. OSS companies make their money by providing services, such as advising clients on the GPL licence. The licencee can either charge a fee for this service or work free of charge. In practice, software companies often develop both types of software. OSS is developed by an ongoing, iterative process where people share the ideas expressed in the source code. The aim is that a large community of developers and users can contribute to the development of the code, check it for errors and bugs, and make the improved version available to others. Project management software is used to allow developers to keep track of the various versions. There are two main types of open-source licences (although there are many variants and subtypes developed by other companies): • Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) Licence: This permits a licencee to “close” a version (by withholding the most recent modifications to the source code) and sell it as a proprietary product; • GNU General Public Licence (GNU, GPL, or GPL): Under this licence, licencees may not “close” versions. The licencee may modify, copy, and redistribute any derivative version, under the same GPL licence. The licencee can either charge a fee for this service or work free of charge. Free software first evolved during the 1970s but in the 1990s forked into two movements, namely free software and open source (Berry, 2004). Richard Stallman, an American software developer who believes that sharing source code and ideas is fundamental to freedom of speech, developed a free version of the widely used Unix operating system. The resulting GNU program was released under a specially created General Public Licence (GNU, GPL). This was designed to ensure that the source code would remain openly available to all. It was not intended to prevent commercial usage or distribution (Stallman, 2002). This approach was christened free software. In this context, free meant that anyone could modify the software. However, the term “free” was often misunderstood to mean no cost. Hence, during the 1990s, Eric Raymond and others proposed that open-source software was coined as a less contentious and more business-friendly term. This has become widely accepted within the software and business communities; however there are still arguments about the most appropriate term to use (Moody, 2002). The OSMs are usually organised into a network of individuals who work collaboratively on the Internet, developing major software projects that sometimes rival commercial software but are always committed to the production of quality alternatives to those produced by commercial companies (Raymond, 2001; Williams, 2002). Groups and individuals develop software to meet their own and others’ needs in a highly decentralised way, likened to a Bazaar (Raymond, 2001). These groups often make substantive value claims to support their projects and foster an ethic of community, collaboration, deliberation, and intellectual freedom. In addition, it is argued by Lessig (1999) that the FLOSS community can offer an inspiration in their commitment to transparency in their products and their ability to open up governmental regulation and control through free/libre and open source code.

The Move to the Middle: Convergence of the Open-Source and Proprietary Software Industries

Open Source Software (OSS) projects rely on the efforts of thousands of software developers. The sustainability and diversity of these communities are two important factors for the longterm viability of OSS communities. This paper reviews the research on OSS sustainability and diversity. Drawing on the findings of measures on sustainability and diversity, we applied a number of the established metrics to the Android Open Source Project and found that over a third of all contributions originate from Google. Surprisingly, in 2015 we saw a decrease in the total number of contributors within the Android project. Findings from our analysis highlight the importance of sustainability and diversity for the development of OSS.

The article examines existing models of free and open-source software licensing worldwide. In particular, software is classified according to the type of distribution licence, while the difference between the concepts of ‘free software’ and ‘open-source software’, their ideological foundations and key features are highlighted. Within the framework of the paper, all free and open-source licences are classified into two key groups – permissive and copyleft. The main features of these groups are defined, and the most widely used licences of each type are analysed. The basis for determining the prevalence of specific free and open-source licences was current statistical data. The state of free and open-source software licensing in the EU is outlined. Special attention is also paid to public domain agreements under the public domain doctrines of the USA and Ukraine, and their relation to free and open-source software. The current legislation of Ukraine regulating free and open-source software licences is analysed. In particular, the legal nature of free and open licenses and their varieties is examined in the context of the existing legal structures of ‘public licence’, ‘licence’, and ‘licence agreement’. Furthermore, attention is given to the Recommendations of the Ministry of Economy, Leisure, and Agriculture regarding the application of free public licences for the use of copyright and related rights, which, for the first time in Ukraine, provide a definition of free public licences. To study the practical application and recognition of free and open-source software licences, relevant judicial practice is analysed. The conclusions emphasise the need for further legislative consolidation and regulation of free and open-source software licences, particularly copyleft licences, which, although operating within the framework of classical copyright, due to their specific nature, do not fully fall under the traditional provisions on public licences.

This chapter discusses the nature of free and open source software from the perspective of business models that can be used to operate within this emerging industry. The focus in the chapter is on free and open source software in general rather than on the specific geospatial domain, however this area of activity is used in several places for reference and by example. The chapter also examines the closed and proprietary complements of the free and open source world and contrasts the rationale and behaviours of software developers and users within both market places. While it is not the intention to set one or the other markets up as a straw man, it is clear from the discussion that the free and open source alternatives have a number of advantages in terms of developing high quality outputs that are responsive to end user needs while embodying the principles of innovation and advancing knowledge.

The rise of Web 2.0 and the current, unprecedented diffusion of mobile devices have laid new foundations for the development of PGIS (Participatory GIS). This study evaluates the possibility of exploiting FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) tools to build up a PGIS prototype providing Web publication of user field-collected data. Besides increasing public awareness and collaboration, user-generated content should also enlarge the knowledge of specific phenomena up to the local level. A prototype architecture was designed and tested in relation to a simple, planning-related case study, i.e., the report of road pavement damages. Open Data Kit suite was used to gather georeferenced multimedia data using mobile device sensors (e.g., the GPS) and to store them into a PostgreSQL database with PostGIS spatial extension. Data was then Web-published using GeoServer. Web access was finally enabled from both traditional desktop-computers and mobile plat forms through ad hoc OpenLayers and Leaflet clientside solutions. The architecture provided support for FOSS applicability within the typical PGIS-related tasks, from field survey to data storage, management and dissemination on the Internet. This bottom-up communication paradigm, which exploits real-time, freely available user contributions, can become a potentially precious tool for making decision-processes more democratic, faster and ultimately better.

In this paper, we study oligopolistic competition between closed and open source softwares. By intersecting existing economic contributions on open source, we propose a two stage game with perfect information and product di¤eretiation in which producers firstly set softwares quality, then they determine prices (constrained at zero for open source programs). In doing this, we explicitly model lock-in e¤ects, network externality components of software quality as well as knowledge accumulation in software use and implementation. With respect to a monopolistic benchmark case, we argue that in duopoly a pro- prietary sofware producer facing an open source software will reduce its selling price whether: (i) its network of users is larger than open sources one and its consumers are largely experienced on its program, (ii) it has a small network of un-skilled consumers. In opposition, after open source softwares emergence, proprietary software price does augment if proprietary software users form a large, but poorly skilled network. Fur- thermore, we show that, in all above cases, proprietary software quality increases because of the existence of a open source alternative to a previouisly monopolistic program. Finally, by modeling knowledge accumulation processes through di¤erence equations, we show that the ratio between closed and open source programs opportunity costs of software learning and deployment plays a crucial role in shaping market outcomes. Until an open source software remains too complex and technical for unskilled or time-scarse users, a shared market solution in which both softwares are adopted is predicted. In contrast, if opportunity costs in learning and understanding open source programs are remarkably low, or at least equal to opportunity costs of a closed source software, then a open source dominance outcome (i.e. all software are open ones) phases out.

Open Source vs. Proprietary Software: Competition and Compatibility

This study is intended to investigate the perceptions of South Asian LIS community towards open source software (OSS) adoption in libraries by adopting a quantitative research design. An online questionnaire-based survey was conducted to reach the geographically dispersed population in the vast region of South Asia. A Likert-type scale with 20 items was designed to collect data. A total of 190 responses were gathered from four countries, namely, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. The collected data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics, independent sample t-Test, and ANOVA were used to draw conclusions. Attention was given to two independent variables: organization type (public/private sector), and library type (academic/public/special). The overall results suggested that respondents had positive perceptions towards OSS adoption in libraries. However, the results of the t-Test and ANOVA indicated that ‘organization type’ and ‘library type’ were insignificant factors, as there were no significant differences of perceptions found among the respondents on the basis of ‘organization type’ or ‘library type’.

MANTRA is an online training course which provides guidelines for good practice in research data management. This release presents the learning units and practical data handling tutorials and materials available on the MANTRA site as of October 2017. The course content is applicable to all research disciplines and is particularly appropriate for postgraduate students and early career researchers who work with data and would like to learn more about managing their research data. This course is an Open Educational Resource that is free for anyone to access and use via the website: https://mantra.edina.ac.uk/ The online course includes eight online units and one set of offline (downloadable) data handling tutorials: Research data explained : Understand the nature of research data in a variety of disciplinary settings Data management plans : Create a data management plan and apply it from the start to the finish of your research project Organising data : Name, organise, and version your data files effectively File formats & transformations : Gain familiarity with different kinds of data formats and know how and when to transform your data Documentation, metadata & citation : Document your data well for yourself and others, learn about metadata standards and cite data properly Storage & security : Know how to store and transport your data safely and securely (backup and encryption) Data protection, rights & access : Understand legal and ethical requirements for managing data about human subjects; manage intellectual property rights Sharing, preservation & licensing : Understand the benefits of sharing, preserving and licensing data for re-use Data handling using ArcGIS Data handling using NVIVO Data handling using R Data handling using SPSS The online course units were created using open source software Xerte Online Toolkits 2.x and can be imported and edited into Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) such as Moodle. Video interviews with University of Edinburgh researchers and selected videos are available via the Data Library YouTube channel.

Dendrochronological techniques are paramount in forest research. The current climate change scenario and the central role of forests in biogeophysical cycles enforce the importance of novel techniques to get accurate data from trees and their relationship with the environment in faster ways. Recent technological advances and the place of open source software and hardware are making free, user-developed tools for forest research available to the research community. The aim of this Ph.D. thesis is the development of tools for image acquisition and data collection in dendrochronology based on open source software and hardware. Thus, four different tools for dendrochronological research are presented in five different chapters. The first chapter focuses on the development of a do-it-yourself tool based on open source hardware for image acquisition and wood sample digitization at high resolution. We used open hardware equipment from Arduino and Python programming to develop CaptuRING and published the entire free open source tool as: "CaptuRING: A Do-It-Yourself tool for wood sample digitization" in Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2022; 13:1185-1191. Furthermore, the original software was registered in the Registro General de Propiedad Intelectual (00/2022/737) of Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte (Spain). The second chapter presents "How to build and install your own CaptuRING". This contribution presents a series of videos with a step-by-step guide to promote the use of CaptuRING in the research community. The manuscript and related videos have been submitted for publication. The third chapter describes ρ-MtreeRing. This free and open-source software, which is written in R, analyzes X-ray films from dendrochronological samples to get microdensity values automatically segmented through a graphical user interface. The open source tool and manuscript are published as: "ρ-MtreeRing. A graphical user interface for X-ray microdensity analysis" in Forests. 2021; 12(10):1405. The fourth chapter describes the potential of deep learning methods to automatically segment xylem vessels. We trained three different convolutional neural networks to segment vessels in stained wood microsections using the Keras framework in Python. Our results demonstrate the potential of these techniques to automatically segment xylem vessels and overcome derived problems from image illumination, which hamper segmentation using classical image segmentation methods. The manuscript is published as "Convolutional neural networks for segmenting xylem vessels in stained cross-sectional images" in: Neural Computing & Applications, 2020; 32:17927-17939. The fifth chapter develops an algorithm to delineate annual ring limits in stained wood microsections of a species with diffuse porous wood using convolutional neural networks. We used Python for image processing and the Keras framework for the algorithm training. The results show the ability of this techniques to obtain accurate tree ring segmentation for quantitative wood anatomy, reaching similar or even outperforming conventional manual delimitation in most of the evaluated cases. The results of this chapter will be presented in the manuscript "Deep Learning for ring bordering in stained cross-sectional images". This PhD Thesis presents four open source tools to get accurate information from wood features to unveil how trees respond to the environment. From digitization at macroscopic perspective, automatic data collection and the development of feature segmentation on microscopic samples. The presented four novel dendrochronological tools based on open source software facilitates forest research in the current climate change scenario.

While free and open source software becomes increasingly important in geospatial research and industry, open science perspectives are generally less reflected in universities’ educational programs. We present an example of how free and open source software can be incorporated into geospatial education to promote open and reproducible science. Since 2008 graduate students at North Carolina State University have the opportunity to take a course on geospatial modeling and analysis that is taught with both proprietary and free and open source software. In this course, students perform geospatial tasks simultaneously in the proprietary package ArcGIS and the free and open source package GRASS GIS. By ensuring that students learn to distinguish between geospatial concepts and software specifics, students become more flexible and stronger spatial thinkers when choosing solutions for their independent work in the future. We also discuss ways to continually update and improve our publicly available teaching materials for reuse by teachers, self-learners and other members of the GIS community. Only when free and open source software is fully integrated into geospatial education, we will be able to encourage a culture of openness and, thus, enable greater reproducibility in research and development applications.

A lot misinformation and mystery surrounds the topic of Open Source software. The conceptual misunderstanding of software is fostered, in some respects, by a lack of understanding within the professional ranks of the computer field. There are many different views of Open Source software today, based upon ones perspective. After about 20 years of evolution, the position of Open Source in our economy still has not coalesced. Few seems to understand whether Open Source is free software for running a computer (i.e., Linux) or just a way to obtain some software products without giving Microsoft ones money. “There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come” - Victor Hugo any view Open Source (OS) software as just a free alternative to proprietary software. The term does not mean that there is no cost associated with its procurement, although some vendors do provide free versions. The word “free” usually means the freedom to copy, modify, or distribute the software. One must be very careful when applying this broad, general meaning to Open Source software. There are many different Open Source licenses in use and it is imperative that users acquaint themselves with the legal ramifications of dealing with intellectual property rights. ` Open Source software should be viewed as a viable alternative in many software selection processes. Recently, the news has portrayed the report of India's Kerala state moving to Linux and OpenOffice for its 2,724 high schools. Likewise, OpenOffice is replacing Microsoft Office in many schools districts around the US. With tight school budgets, school superintendents are realizing significant cost savings by using the OpenOffice products for their campuses. Products such as OpenOffice may not be 100% compatible with their current proprietary counterpart, but for many applications, compatibility is not the issue. The price and the software license management of proprietary packages may be overwhelming.