View
209
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Survey Results: Bridging the Gap Between Open Standards and Open Source
Elizabeth Rose, Open Mobile Alliance
OMA’s Motivation
• Two years ago, OMA started on a journey to understand how it could improve adoption of its service-layer specifications.
• Very quickly we found that Developers are key to widespread adoption.• We began to create an ecosystem of tools and collaboration around our
specifications that allowed for Developers to implement the specifications more easily.
• https://github.com/OpenMobileAlliance/OMA_LwM2M_for_Developers/wiki• We also ran into the fact that the Developer community is highly oriented
toward open source code, projects, tools and associations.• We launched the survey in an attempt to find better data about how our
traditional telco-oriented members are approaching Open Source and how that direction compares to a wider sample.
Survey background
• The purpose of the survey is to help OMA understand the role Open Source Software and Open Source Associations play in our industry.
• Understand prevailing attitudes regarding Open Source and Open Standards.• Examine what (if anything) OMA should be doing to better serve its members
and the industry at large in relation to Open Source projects.• The survey population:
• The industry at large as serviced by the OMA marketing database and social media
• Survey responses – 419 individual responses including hundreds of text-based, open-ended answers.
• A summary of the survey will be available on the OMA website and will be sent to those who participated in the survey
Public Survey OMA membership breakdown
22%
55%
23%
Is your company a member of the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA)?
Yes No I don't know
Sampling of companies of respondents
Copyright © 2016 Open Mobile Alliance Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sampling of companies of respondents
Copyright © 2016 Open Mobile Alliance Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sampling of companies of respondents
Copyright © 2016 Open Mobile Alliance Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sampling of companies of respondents
Copyright © 2016 Open Mobile Alliance Ltd. All rights reserved.
Companies of respondents
12%9%
10%
29%
40%
Indicate your company's primary business:
Mobile operator Network equipment vendorMobile device vendor Software developerOther (please specify)
Open Standards definition
99%
1%Agree
Disagree
OpenStandardsarebestdefinedasdocumentsmadeavailabletothegeneralpublic,whicharedeveloped(orapproved)andmaintainedviaamanaged,collaborative,transparent,andconsensus-drivenprocess."OpenStandards"facilitateinteroperabilityanddataexchangeamongdifferentproductsorservicesandareintendedforwidespreadadoption.(adaptedfromITU-Tdefinition)
98%
2% Agree
Disagree
Open Source projects definition
Public
Open Source projects are best defined as programs in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design that is made available under an open source license. Open source code is typically created as a collaborative effort in which programmers improve upon the code and often share the changes among the programming community for such projects. At a high level, open source licenses allow users the freedom to use, modify, and distribute the source code without requiring any further permissions.
OS Project participation
52%25%
23%
Is your company participating in Open Source communities or projects that are relevant to Telecommunications or IOT?
Yes No Not Sure
OS Project participation
IfyourcompanyisparticipatinginOpenSourceassociationsthatarerelevanttoTelecommunicationsorIOT,pleaseindicatewhichonesbelow:
Open Daylight
OpenStack
OPNFV
Open Connectivity Foundation (OIC)
AllSeen
Eclipse Foundation
OS Project participation
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Ope
n D
aylig
ht
Ope
nSta
ck
OP
NF
V
Ope
n C
onne
ctiv
ity
Fou
ndat
ion
(OIC
)
AllS
een
Ecl
ipse
F
ound
atio
n
N/A
Oth
er (
plea
se
spec
ify)
If your company is participating in Open Source associations that are relevant to Telecommunications or IOT, please
indicate which ones below:
OS Project participation
41%
37%
19%
3%
How would you characterize your participation in these organizations?
We actively make contributions/pull requests to the code base.We are monitoring the progress of the code base.Our participation is more strategic than operational.We do not participate at all.
OS Project participation
Inyouropinion,whatareyourcompany'sgoalswithintheseorganizations?Checkallthatapply:
• Accelerate time to market for products/services
• Facilitate interoperability with other products/services
• Actively participate in the development of the code base
• Developer enablement
• Monitor technology advancement
• None
• Other (please specify)
OS Project participation
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Acc
eler
ate
time
to m
arke
t for
pr
oduc
ts/s
ervi
ces
Fac
ilita
te
inte
rope
rabi
lity
with
oth
er
prod
ucts
/ser
vic…
Act
ivel
y pa
rtici
pate
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
the
code
bas
e
Dev
elop
er
enab
lem
ent
Mon
itor
tech
nolo
gy
adva
ncem
ent
Non
e
Oth
er (
plea
se
spec
ify)
In your opinion, what are your company's goals within these organizations? Check all that apply:
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
My company participates actively in traditional standards bodies:
Standards bodies participation
Public
• W3C,IETFandETSImostoftencitedasadoptingpoliciestoaccommodateopensourcesoftware
OS Project participation
57%
2%
29%
12%
Is your company's participation in Open Source organizations increasing, decreasing, or steady?
Increasing Decreasing Steady Don't know
Telecom & IOT Services trends
• Machine to Machine / IOT products and implementations will • rely heavily on Open Source implementations
• rely heavily on Open Standards based implementations
• rely heavily on proprietary implementations
• Next Gen Telecom / NFV network products and implementations will • rely heavily on Open Source implementations
• rely heavily on Open Standards based implementations
• rely heavily on proprietary implementations
Pleasegiveyouropiniononthefollowingstatements:
Telecom & IOT Services trends
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Mac
hine
to M
achi
ne /
IO
T p
rodu
cts
and
impl
emen
tatio
ns w
ill
rely
hea
vily
on
Ope
n S
ourc
e im
plem
enta
tions
Mac
hine
to M
achi
ne /
IO
T p
rodu
cts
and
impl
emen
tatio
ns w
ill
rely
hea
vily
on
Ope
n S
tand
ards
bas
ed
impl
emen
tatio
ns
Mac
hine
to M
achi
ne /
IO
T p
rodu
cts
and
impl
emen
tatio
ns w
ill
rely
hea
vily
on
prop
rieta
ry
impl
emen
tatio
ns
Nex
t Gen
Tel
ecom
/ N
FV
net
wor
k pr
oduc
ts
and
impl
emen
tatio
ns
will
rel
y he
avily
on
Ope
n S
ourc
e im
plem
enta
tions
Nex
t Gen
Tel
ecom
/ N
FV
net
wor
k pr
oduc
ts
and
impl
emen
tatio
ns
will
rel
y he
avily
on
Ope
n S
tand
ards
ba
sed …
Nex
t Gen
Tel
ecom
/ N
FV
net
wor
k pr
oduc
ts
and
impl
emen
tatio
ns
will
rel
y he
avily
on
prop
rieta
ry
impl
emen
tatio
ns
Please give your opinion on the following statements:
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
N/A
Telecom Services trend
Inthescopeoftelecomservicesdeployment,whatdoyouthinkwillbethedominanttrendinthenextseveralyears?
• Proprietary implementations of non standard specifications
• Proprietary implementations of open standards specifications
• Open source implementations of open standards specifications
• Open source implementations not using open standards
Telecom Services trend
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Proprietary implementation of
non standard specifications
Proprietary implementations
of open standards
specifications
Open source implementations
of open standards
specifications
Open source implementations not using open
standards
In the scope of telecom services deployment, what do you think will be the dominant trend in the next several years?
Increase
Decrease
Stable
No Opinion
RAND + Open Source
36%
4%60%
Do you believe that RAND based specifications can be successfully implemented into Open Source projects?
Yes No Not sure
Complexityandincompatibilityoflicensingtermsoftencitedasthebiggesthurdle.
Telecom Services trend
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Proprietary implementation of
non standard specifications
Proprietary implementations
of open standards
specifications
Open source implementations
of open standards
specifications
Open source implementations not using open
standards
In the scope of telecom services deployment, what do you think will be the dominant trend in the next several years?
Increase
Decrease
Stable
No Opinion
Open Standards + Open Source
Agree70%
Neutral20%
Disagree10%
Open Standards play an entirely different role than Open Source
Open Standards + Open Source
Agree80%Disagree
3%
Neutral17%
The Open Standards community would benefit from a closer relationship to the Open Source community
• Earlyopensourceimplementationsofstandardscanprovidefeedbacktoimprovethestandard• Opensourceimplementationshelpwithdisseminationandproliferationofthestandard
Agree77%
Disagree19%
Neutral4%
The Open Source community would benefit from a closer relationship to the Open Standards community.
Open Standards + Open Source
• OpenStandardscanhelpopensourcecommunitieswithoverallarchitectureandsystemdesignconsiderations,quality,interoperabilityandroadmap.
Question for Operators
Copyright © 2016 Open Mobile Alliance Ltd. All rights reserved.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
WedeployOpen
Sourceso
ftwarein
ourn
etworks
Ournetworkis
hostedinanOpen
Sourceen
abled
Clou
d
OpenSource
softwarew
illplayan
increasin
gly
impo
rtantroleinour
procurem
ent…
OpenSource
representsan
op
portun
ityto
significantlydecrease
operatingcosts
OpenSource
softwarecreatesthe
potentialforrisks
andweavoidusingit
inmissioncritical…
Werelyonou
rvend
orstomitigate
anyrisk
sassociated
with
OpenSource
codeand
wedo
not…
OpenSource
softwarea
doptionis
awork-in-progress
andweallowitinour
netw
orkw
ithcaution
Wedo
notuseOpen
Sourceinour
prod
ucts
Agree Neutral Disagree
Pleasegiveyouropiniononwhichstatementsmostaccuratelyreflectyourunderstandingofyourcompany'sapproachtodeployingOpenSourcesoftware
Open ended questions
What are the inhibitors to adoption of Open Source implementations?• Issues surrounding licensing (esp. GPL)• Industry understanding of Open Source licensing• Competitive issues and fragmentation• Security• Quality and robustness• Maintenance and support
OMA’s Steps• OMA has taken some specific steps to make its specifications easier for Developers
to consume.• Developer Focused Specifications and Tools
• LwM2M device management protocol for constrained devices (esp. IoT)• Developer Toolkit is available on GitHub
https://github.com/OpenMobileAlliance/OMA_LwM2M_for_Developers/wiki• GotAPI a secure framework for smartphone web apps to access external devices and internal
apps through Web-standard technologies supported by major Web browsers and smartphone platforms
• NTT DOCOMO provides Open Source Plug-ins with device WebAPIs available at https://github.com/DeviceConnect
• Licensing• OMA produces technical specifications that may contain RAND IPR.• OMA also produces supporting documents that are designed to make implementations (code)
easier to produce. These documents contain .dtd, .xsd, .xml.• OMA has agreed to license the supporting documents under a BSD-3 license. The license does
include a pointer to OMA IPR declarations.• The goal is to make supporting documents easier to distribute and hopefully more valuable to
developers.
Recommended