OSL 3.0: A Better License for Open Source Software

Over the past few years, Microsoft has promoted a project called ‘Shared Source Initiative’, which allows certain customers (e.g., research institutions and independent software vendors) access to its source code on a restricted basis. As part of this initiative, Microsoft introduced some licences that appear to give unrestricted access to source code and closely resemble ‘traditional’ Open Source licences. In July 2007, two of these ‘shared source’ licenses (the Microsoft Community Licence and the Microsoft Permissive Licence) were submitted to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and subsequently approved by the OSI as certified Open Source licences. Thus Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative and its partial embrace of Open Source appear to be a significant step towards closing the ideological rift between developers of proprietary software and the Free/Open Source software movement, and more than just another attempt to appease consumers and/or critics in terms of software transparency. By analysing the ‘evolution’ of Microsoft's Shared Source licences, this article aims to shed some light on the question what is needed for a ‘predator’ (i.e., proprietary, software developer) such as Microsoft to become ‘prey’ (i.e., be part of the Open Source community). This article concludes that, although Microsoft's efforts are to be lauded, it is highly unlikely that the company will embrace fully the Open Source philosophy in the near future.

The popularity of Open Source Software and the usage of Open Source Licenses has greatly increased in the last few years. While some years ago, working on an Open Source basis was merely done by some alternative programmers, Open Source Projects have by now become an established, efficient and cost-saving way of realizing difficult and extensive projects and a real competition to proprietary software. Open Source licenses have become interesting for software enterprises, too. Some companies recognised that the Open Source community on the internet may constitute a strong support for projects, if it is possible to create enthusiasm for a project within the community. A recent, well-known example is the new web browser publicised by Google, Chrome, which is based on Open Source Software. In some cases, it might also be attractive for a software company to sell services, warranties, addons or other valuable products related to an Open Source product, which itself is given away for free. In this connection, however, it has become an important topic for enterprises to what extent it is possible to commercially exploit the results of Open Source Projects. This commercial usability strongly depends on the Open Source license chosen for a certain project. Therefore, the people responsible for a project have to conduct a thorough analysis on which license to choose. As the most common licenses GPL (GNU Public License) and LGPL (Lesser GNU Public License) do not constitute an ideal solution in this regard. This article will, in particular, take a closer look at alternative licenses existing.

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.

Software Engineering courses often emphasize teaching methodologies and concepts in small and controlled environments over teaching, say, maintenance aspects of full-fledged real software systems. This decision is partly justified due to the difficulty of bringing to the context of a classroom a real software project. The widespread presence of open source projects, however, is contributing to alleviating this problem. Several instructors have already adopted contributions to open source projects as part of their evaluation process, and these instructors reported many benefits, including the improvement on students' technical and social skills. However, little is known about the students' perceptions regarding the need to contribute to an open source project as part of a Software Engineering course. To better understand the students' challenges, benefits, and attitudes, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with students who took these courses in five different Brazilian universities. We also enriched this data with an analysis of commits performed in the repositories that students contributed to. We observed that even though some instructors chose the open source projects to students to work themselves, some students and even the open source community participated in the process of choosing projects and tasks. Students' contributions varied concerning both complexity (measured by the number of additions, deletions, and edited files) and diversity (measured regarding the different programming languages used). Among the benefits, students reported improving their technical skills and their self-confidence. Finally, some students found extremely important for instructors' being involved with open source initiatives (extra-classroom).

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.

In the software industry, commercial open-source software vendors have recognized that providing services to help businesses derive greater value in the implementation of open source–based systems can be a profitable business model. Moreover, society may greatly benefit when software originators choose an open-source development strategy as their products become widely available, readily customizable, and open to community contributions. In this study, we present an economic model to study how software licensing attributes affect a software originator’s decisions, aiming to provide policy makers with insights into how welfare-improving, open-source outcomes can be incentivized. We show that when a competing contributor is apt at reaping the benefits of software development investment, a less restrictive open source license (e.g., Berkeley Software Distribution, or BSD style) can improve welfare. On the other hand, when the originator is better at leveraging investment and service costs are high, a more restrictive license (e.g., General Public License, or GPL style) can be best for social welfare even when a contributor can cost-efficiently develop the software. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0726 .

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.

Over the past decade, numerous computer-assisted retrosynthesis reaction prediction methods have been reported in the chemical literature, several of which are also shared as open-source code. Reports of integrating these modern open-source retrosynthetic prediction techniques into the chemical education classroom, however, is largely absent. This article describes our efforts to teach a computer-assisted retrosynthesis workshop series using open-source reaction prediction software and methods. In addition to three workshops on selected open-source reaction prediction methods, the series included workshops on Python programming and introductory cheminformatics using the RDKit cheminformatics toolkit. A pre and post survey was distributed to better understand participant familiarity and workshop outcomes. Participants indicated that they had minimal experience with cheminformatics, and open-source retrosynthesis software, however after the workshop series they indicated increased familiarity, interest, and desire to pursue additional training related to open-source retrosynthesis software and methods. We conclude this article with our experiences and ideas for future improvements. The workshop materials and code are available with an open source license, and educators are encouraged to adapt and improve the lessons (https://github.com/UA-Libraries-Research-Data-Services/retrosynthesis).

This chapter examines the development of open source computer software with specific reference to the political economy of copyleft and the legalities associated with the General Public License (GPL). It will be seen that within the context of computer software development the notion of copyleft provides an important contrast to more traditional uses of copyright. This contrast symbolizes political, economic, and social struggles which are contextualized within this chapter. As the GPL is an important legal embodiment of copyleft, its legalities are preliminarily explored so as to determine its future potential. While there is some scope to further refine the legal strength of the GPL, it will be seen that it remains a strong and subversive legal instrument which will continue to underlie open source initiatives in the years to come.

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.

Open Source Software (OSS) is software products available to the public, with its source code to study, change, and improves its design. Open Source Software Development (OSSD) is the process by which open source software is developed within the confines of software engineering life-cycle methods. However when open source used for commercial purpose, then an open source license is required. Open source software is very often developed in a public and collaborative manner. The quality assurance principle under open source software development is an approach to improve software product quality against traditional methods and techniques. Despite the fact that the open source developments have seen remarkable successful in recent years, there are a number of product quality issues and challenges facing the open source development model. Many industries and business sectors are following or using OSSD, since they realize the benefits, but they do have some reservations concerning quality assurance in the form of program code quality, maintenance of the code and its quality, over the life-cycle of the product and third party usage. This paper reviews the literature of the process of the latest quality assurance, under open source software development methods and techniques. The result from this review is to show the process of quality assurance of open source software and that how it can affect the overall quality assurance principal.

Evaluation of an Open Source Learning Management System: Claroline

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.

The software license is one of the most important non-executable pieces of any software system. However, due to its non-technical nature, developers often misuse or misunderstand software licenses. Although previous studies reported problems related to licenses clashes and inconsistencies, in this paper we shed the light on an important but yet overlooked issue: the use of non-approved open-source licenses. Such licenses claim to be open-source, but have not been formally approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). When a developer releases a software under a non-approved license, even if the interest is to make it open-source, the original author might not be granting the rights required by those who use the software. To uncover the reasons behind the use of non-approved licenses, we conducted a mix-method study, mining data from 657K open-source projects and their 4,367K versions, and surveying 76 developers that published some of these projects. Although 1,058,554 of the project versions employ at least one non-approved license, non-approved licenses account for 21.51% of license usage. We also observed that it is not uncommon for developers to change from a non-approved to an approved license. When asked, some developers mentioned that this transition was due to a better understanding of the disadvantages of using an non-approved license. This perspective is particularly important since developers often rely on package managers to easily and quickly get their dependencies working.

In order to guaranty performances of complex systems using numerical simulation, CEA is performing advanced data analysis and scientific visualization with open source software using High Performance Computing (HPC) capability. The diversity of the physics to study produces results of growing complexity in terms of large-scale, high dimensional and multivariate data. Moreover, the HPC approach introduces another layer of complexity by allowing computation amongst thousands of remote cores accessed from sites located hundreds of kilometers away from the computing facility. This paper presents how CEA deploys and contributes to open source software to enable production class visualization tools in a high performance computing context. Among several open source projects used at CEA, this presentation will focus on Visit, VTK and Paraview. In the first part we will address specific issues encountered when deploying VisIt and Paraview in a multi-site supercomputing facility for end-users. Several examples will be given on how such tools can be adapted to take advantage of a parallel setting to explore large multi-block dataset or perform remote visualization on material interface reconstructions of billions of cells. Then, the specific challenges faced to deliver Paraview’s Catalyst capabilities to end-users will be discussed. In the second part, we will describe how CEA contributes to open source visualization software and associated software development strategy by emphasizing on two recent development projects. The first is an integrated simulation workbench providing plugins for every step required to achieve numerical simulation independently on a local or a remote computer. Embedded in an Eclipse RCP environment, VTK views allow the users to perform data input using interaction or mesh preview before running the simulation code. Contributions to VTK have been made in order to smoothly integrate these technologies. The second details how recent developments at CEA have helped to visualize and to analyze results from ExaStamp, a parallel molecular dynamics simulation code dealing with molecular systems ranging from a few millions up to a billion atoms. These developments include a GPU intensive rendering method specialized for atoms and specific parallel algorithms to process molecular data sets.