End Report Project 06222 Open Nordic

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration• Creating a center based on existing institutions• Create a repository of business models on open source software• Create opportunities for sharing open source software across the Nordics• Make the open source model accessible for both public and private sector

July 2008

Authors: Morten Kjærsgaard, Mats Østling, Petri Räsänen, Guðmundur Ásmundsson and Fredrik Syversen

Phot

o: R

une

Tolli

sen

SwedenSveriges kommuner og landsting Mats Ø[email protected]

DenmarkDanish Open Source Business AssociationMorten Kjæ[email protected]

NorwayIKT-NorgeFredrik [email protected]

The following people and institutions have participated in the project:

IcelandSamtök iðnaðarinsGuðmundur Á[email protected]

FinlandCenter for Open Source Software Petri Räsä[email protected]

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration III

Title: Creating a virtual Nordic Center for Open Source SoftwareNordic Innovation Centre project number: 06222

Authors: Morten Kjærsgaard, Mats Østling, Guðmundur Ásmundsson, Petri Räsänen, , Claus Lassen, Anders Nordh, and Fredrik Syversen

Institutions: Danish Open Source Business Association (Denmark), Sveriges kommuner og landsting (Sweden), Center for Open Source Software (Coss Finland), Samtök iðnaðarins (Iceland)

Abstract: The aim of this project has been to create a real Nordic Open Source Center based on existing institu-tions. Create a repository of business models and best practice of OSS projects in the Nordic, to look at the developer networks in the Nordics. In addition we wanted to create a virtual Nordic code sharing site. To conclude our project we hosted a Nordic conference. We also concentrated on the public relations part which we believe is one of the main strategies of bringing awareness of open source to the public at large.

The main result of the project:The project has been focused on getting the Nordic players to work together. Our main task has been to align and leverage on the different strong points the players have. Doing this have made it easier to achieve concrete results.

A focused survey among the top Open Source Software companies (OSS) in the Nordics have been made. Both business models and the development process have been documented with real companies and real projects. In addition our Finnish partner have contributed with extensive research made on business models connected to OSS.

During the duration of the projects there have been established a code sharing sites in all the Scandinavian countries and Finland is on the verge of doing the same. Groundwork have been done in order to connect these initiatives so that both code and business can flow across the Nordics.

The practices of the Nordic developer networking have been studied, good Nordic and global practices have been identified, and good practices have been promoted in the target groups of the open source centers.

The end conference was held in Norway, Skien late June with over 300 participants from all over Europe. This gave us a opportunity to show the Nordic relevance and commitment to OSS

Topic/NICe Focus Area: ICT

ISSN: Language: English Pages: 60

Key words: ICT, Open Souce, Code sharing, Business models, Conference, developer networks, software, ecosystems

Distributed by: Nordic Innovation Centrewww.nordicinnovation.net

Contact person:Fredrik Syversen, DirectorIKT-Norgewww.ikt-norge.no

IV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration V

ContentsExecutive Summary 1

Part 1: Business models1 Building a Best Practice Repository 6 1.1.BusinessModelsintheNordics 6 1.2TheQuestionofEcosystem 8 1.3DevelopmentfromTraditionalLicensingtoOpenSourceSoftware 92 Developing New OSS projects 9 2.1InternationalisationwithinOpenSourceSoftware 10

Part 2: Nordic Code Sharing Site (Work package 3) 11Background 11The website 13Developer’s area 13A virtual Nordic code-sharing site – work and results 13Conclusion and recommendations 14

Part 3: Developer Networking 15Introduction 15Types of open source communities and collaboration 16Open source community sustainability evaluation 19Evaluation of open source software 20Conclusions and recommendations 21

AppendixAppendix 1: Summary of WP Responsible and Deliveries IAppendix 2: Business models for open source and nordic collaboration IIAppendix 3: Study on the use of Open Source Software in the Norwegian Software Industry, Conclusions XVAppendix 4: Survey XVIIAppendix 5: An Example of a Supplier-driven site: The Danish Software Exchange XXIAppendix 6: Open Source Business (Models) XXII Appendix 7: Glossary of Open Source Software Terminology XXIIIAppendix 8: Program XXIVAppendix 9: Press facsimiles XXIX

vi The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration �

Executive SummaryBackground:The Nordic business sector is probably one the most advanced regions in the world. This means that all business and public institutions relies heavily on their ICT-infrastructure to be the most cost efficient and modern. It is paramount, not only for the ICT-Industry bit for all to have some knowledge and aid when challenged by OSS as a innovation model, business model and a development model. I order to compete with global business, knowledge and actions on these issues are crucial for future success .

Sharing on a Nordic level will give us a broader and more complete insight than working on this nationally. It is also important for business in the OSS environment to meet Nordic colleagues that can motivate and aid them, as this is yet a new way to do business.

OSS is fast changing the way we develop and do business. In many ways OSS is the major running busi-ness philosophy in the Internet business. Google, Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, and their equivalents in the Nordics and in Europe. They are all based upon free use and the sharing of information content and opini-ons, their founders are all based in the OSS world. We strongly feel that the Nordics have the characteris-tics that gives us an edge compared to rest of Europe, and of course Finland with Linux have strong tradi-tions to OSS. But the facts that the Nordics are user-oriented, have often flat organizations and are based upon notion that knowledge sharing and the spreading of information are a benefit to the whole.

These facts underlines the need to introduce OSS to both public sector and for business. We are going to both benefit from and contribute to the Nordic culture of sharing and collaborating, which is a natural and embedded part of our open societies

Open Source is as a community of equals. Typically there is a real-world community built around the mailing lists and support groups of Open Source, but more importantly, as a user of open source you regain control over your use of software. You are not simply a powerless consumer. The impact of open source tech-nology is expected to be quite noticeable in the software industry, and in society as a whole. It allows for novel development models, which have already been demonstrated to be especially well suited to efficiently take advantage of the work of developers spread across all corners of the planet. It also enables completely new business models, which are shaping a network of groups and companies based on open source software development. And it has, in general, a very positive impact as an enabler for the creation of new markets and business opportunities. The Nordic public sector is well known for having an advanced and modern ICT-infrastructure and a high level of ICT-use within the administration as well as in the services offered to citizens. In order to take an-other step in the development of a modern and effective eGovernment in the Nordic public sector, we have to find new methods and models for sharing knowledge, experience and ICT-solutions. ScopeOpen source software (OSS) is the most disruptive change in the world of software since the introduction of the Internet. OSS challenges the given truths in many areas: New innovation models, new development models, new business models, new licensing models, new support models, new value chain models.

All these new ways of creating new software and new solutions creates great challenges and great opportu-nities. Today the open source infrastructure is based on Nordic initiatives LAMP, is the foundation of much of the OSS systems. L stands for Linux, the operating system out of Finland, A stands for Apache the server system out of US, M stands for MySQL the database company of of Sweden/Finland, and finally P stands for PHP, the code language for web solutions out of Denmark. Norway has a number of companies that also gives the Nordics a certain position with the global OSS community.

Aim of the project:• Create a real virtual Nordic Open Source Center based on existing institutions. • Create a repository of business models best practice of OSS projects in the Nordic. (WP2) • Create a virtual Nordic code sharing site. (WP3)• Developer networking. (WP4)• Host a Nordic conference (WP5)• Public relations

2 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The aim of the work-packages:

Business models: The main objective was to describe the different business models when working with an Open Source mo-del, with focus om these areas; * Developing new software using OSS projects* Business development from traditional license model to OSS* Internationalization within OSS

Nordic Open Source RepositoryThe main objective was to establish a virtual Nordic code sharing site, and describe best practice from Nordics and EU. This work package aimed at: * Connecting\s the Nordic initiatives* Involve and Challenge the use and development on a cross-Nordic level* Create a working relationship with private sector on use, support, and maintenance on OSS

Development networksThe task was to identify “best practice” in organizing, financing, and the administration of OSS projects and tom iIdentify developer networks in the Nordics.

Nordic Conference and PRThe conference was to end with a conference that attracted both people from the Nordics and Europe. The aim was to bring the Nordic dimension and to tell the story of the project. PR has been an important and integrated part of our project with focus both on the ICT media and business media.

Conclusions and recommendationsBusiness modelsThere are varying degrees as to which you can open your software to other parties and thereby opening up a whole range of different possible modes of doing business. Open source is no longer regarded as an exclusive either-or, but rather as an element among others around which o build ones particular business.

There seems to be an abundance of open source related projects within the software industry. A great many and very diverse projects take place along the lines of a variety of different business models, but in general there is only little ecosystem present to preserve and maintain the recycling, integration and further development of open source software.

If already conquered territory is to be retained and safeguarded against the threat of evaporating over time, lasting ecosystems needs to be established. Frameworks within which players are offered the continuity necessary for the proliferation and recycling of open source related products and projects, and where market positions can be maintained and strengthened.

The partners in the Open Nordic project has established a strong collaboration crossing the national boun-daries in the Nordic countries. The Open Nordic Centre has, among other things, been coordinating software repositories in the Nordics, which today is widely used, especially by the respective public sectors.

The Open Nordic Centre is, in our opinion, only in the first and very important stages of the Open Nordic project. The next step would be to focus upon the Nordic software industry, which holds a promising potential for future growth (or, as one researcher on the industry would have it “the future of Open source software looks indeed very Nordic”, referring to LINUX, APACHE, MySQL, PHP, among others^1 <#sdfootnote1sym>). The partners of the Open Nordic collaboration wish to strengthen the position of Nordic companies in the respective domestic markets, and we wish to do so by turning the Scandinavian markets into one single domestic market, hereby giving the Nordic enterprises the needed platform for competing on global level with of large-scale international corporations.

Naturally, the Open Nordic partners are aware of the fact, that this task cannot be managed be the Open Nordic on its own. This is a long-lasting process, the success of which, depends on several players. On the other hand, this process needs to be started, and the Open Nordic Centre is more than ready to take on this


task. Through a large and extended network linking with both enterprises, civil servants, private and public decision makers, the Open Nordic Centre will be able to set the direction for open source code soft-ware and its competitiveness on the software markets.

Nordic Code sharing site (WP3)The first part of the Virtual Nordic code-sharing site is finished and we have established a close and rewar-ding collaboration. A common taxonomy have been agreed upon as well as the methods for exchanging information and make searches in all the Nordic repositories possible. Connections to other repositories are established and we can see a growing interest for what is happening in the Nordic countries. There are a number of other areas that we don’t have fully explored yet, where the repositories could benefit from continuous collaboration. We have held a number of workshops regarding the collaboration between the code-sharing sites. The discussions have focused on taxonomy, strategies and policies, exchange of news and how to populate the repositories with software. Two more repositories have been added to the two already existing. The experiences and findings have been discussed and described in workshops, seminars and confe-rences.

The Nordic repositories have been active in the European community and played a vital role in the progress of OSOR, the EU-repository, thus creating a platform for the Nordic Public Sector and the Nordic vendors in the European Open Source Community. A common Nordic software market for Opens Source Software is not that far away if we continue with our efforts. It is important that the Nordic countries keep on collaborating with the EU-repository -OSOR, but even more important the Nordics play an active part in the process and the ongoing development.

We have just started to examine the nature of communities where the Public Sector is to be involved, and both research and case studies is needed to understand how re-use of publicly developed software can occur.

Developer Networking (WP4) The starting point to understand business -developer community collaboration is the typology of open source communities. Four ideal types of open source communities can be identified: 1. Centralized, company-driven, small community (e.g. MySQL) 2. Large community, several companies, business work ethics (e.g. Eclipse) 3. Large community, several companies, hacker background (e.g. Linux kernel, Gnome) 4. Volunteer, decentralized, large (e.g. Debian).Different kinds of recommendable collaboration models are presented for each community type.

The sustainability profile of a open source community in crucial factor the management of open source business risk. An evaluation model that comprises the social, economical, legal and cultural sustainability factors is suggested. Several systematic tools are available for the evaluation of open source software. The value of these tools is not only in the final result the method produces, but the process itself.

Suggestions for further action:

Action Who

Education of software professionals and companies related to methods and processes of community collaboration

Open source competence centres, Universities

New knowledge and knowledge sharing about creating new communities

Universities, Open source competence centres

Catalysing company-community collaboration: conferences, workshops, project funding

Open source compence centres

� The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Nordic Conference (WP5).Throughout 2007 we have organized a dialogue between all the major Conferences related in the Nordics and worked to make the participation in these conferences less national and more Nordic by promoting each national conference through the contact networks in all the 5 Nordic countries.

We have developed a joint brand, Open Nordic, now being offered to other Nordic Conferences to brand them as more Nordic and enable them to attract a broader Nordic participation.

The wrap up conference for the project will be the first in what we hope will be a series of well established conferences branded by the Open Nordic brand. The first conference will be the transformed version of eZ Conference, originally the largest Open Source related conference in content management. Last year eZ Conference attracted more the 300 participants from more then 30 countries. June 19th –20th a rebranded Open Nordic version of the eZ conference was held in Skien Norway. The scope this first Open Nordic conference will be broader the original eZ conference now also hosting Open Nordic Mobile in cooperation with a number of players in the mobile services and technology sector. Over 300 people from all over Europe attended the conference. We also awarded a company and a person for their outstanding contribution to the open source community in the Nordics, winners were Bjørn Venn (Individual), and MySql (Company).

PR/mediaThe project has used the project meeting in each country to get press coverage to promote project results into the media. In addition the end conference gave us opportunities focus in the projects and its Please see attached clippings on the project-related coverage for 2007 in appendix 2.

Photo: Rune Tollisen


The way aheadThe projects have identified a number of areas where future collaboration will make a big difference. The key cooperation areas and their specific challenges are illustrated below.

Collaboration area Key challenge Who could participate

Political focus on the OSS opportunity for the Nordics- both as builders of an advanced public eService offering and as a business case for increased software based export.

Move current strong political support in Norway to more countries and make the Norwegian political support more robust.

Governments, Nordic council, Public agencies

Sharing of code for use in private and public sectors and building of sustainable communities around the code

Only a small fraction of code shared in current repositories are being used and enhanced because they lack an active community and an ecosystem . We need to learn more involved actors the best practices of building a sustainable community/ecosystem

The national Competency centers in collaboration with OSS vendor association, developer and user communities and related Research and Education institutions

Procurement of software based solutions in public sector

Current procedures, buying cultures and competencies of public purchasers are keeping OSS based solutions and vendors out of the public sector

Governments, public agencies and bodies.

OSS related education and research

A nonexistent and at best a very fragmented offering in an area where the biggest growth barriers is the availability of talents

Nordic Universities and University Colleges, research institutions in technology, social sciences, economic and business development.

Venture Capital interest and funding availability

Lack of insights into OSS related business models, practices and strategies

Business angels with experience in OSS. VC associations, ICT associations.

Strengthening the OpenNordic brand and establish more permanent transnordic events and communities

A large portion of the OSS related events and networks are national only. This reduces our ability to make Nordic and global collaborations succeed in the global arena

Current “owners” of the OpenNordic brand; primarily the competency centers, the ICT associations and the current networks controlling key OSS events.

� The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Part 1: Business models

1 Building a Best Practice RepositoryIn order to expand the knowledge of working business models in open source enterprises in Scandinavia, as well as testing the grounds for a future Nordic network – Open Nordic, the Nordic Virtual Centre of Open Source (the project) instigated a small-scale probe into the business models of enterprises in Finland, Den-mark, Norway and Sweden.1) The query was carried out in the during the whole project, and constitutes the foundation of an Open Nordic best practice repository. 27 Scandinavian companies were asked to answer a series questions regarding their business models, the creation of revenues, the structure of the ecosystem surrounding their opens source activities and the pos-sibility of linking onto these ecosystems. A minimum of five companies was selected from each of the 4 countries (respectively 8 Finnish, 9 Danish, 6 Norwegian and 5 Swedish companies chose to participate). The companies represent a diverse segment of open source enterprises offering a broad range of open source related activities, services and products. The group consisted of both large internationally located companies crossing national boundaries (globally as well as in the Nordics only), and smaller locally based enterprises. For future use and furthering of already established networks contact information for all 28 companies was gathered and stored in the repository.2)

The query behind the repository must therefore also be seen much less as a scientific research proper, than a first step in bringing together open source enterprises in the Nordic countries and as one of the first steps in creating of a Nordic network for open source software enterprises. The intention was both to provide Open Nordic with an initial grouping together of possible companies interested in future cooperation as well as a tool for mapping open source software-related business activities in the Scandinavian countries. Best practice is to be understood in the sense of different and well-established business models for open source related enterprises.3)

The questions where designed in order to highlight different business models in enterprises connected to and earning an income from open source software related activities. The query should be able to provide examples of different possible models of doing business in the software industry involved with open source in Scandinavia.

Of special interest to the Open Nordic Centre was the importance of the network and/or ecosystem in the distribution and proliferation of open source solutions.

1.1. Business Models in the Nordics The query was intended to highlight different working business models in the Nordic countries. Enter-prises were asked to state their main field of specialisation and their company’s primary source of income working with open source. Secondly, they were asked to describe their business model in their own words. Enterprises were asked to place their company within five different categories:4)

Open Source and Hardware I.e. the use of open source as the foundation for the software running their machines when making hardware.

Open source and Aggregation Companies that assemble various open source software packages into integrated and easily consumable units.

�) The number of open source-enterprises based in Iceland is still very limited, and although the Icelandic forum for open source activities (the Icelandic SI) is part of the Open Nordic collaboration, wherefore there are no current plans of expanding the repository to covering Iceland.

2) The repository is available at http://www.coss.fi/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=PUB.�0��.7 , at the Open Nordic homepage.�) The Finnish research project OSSI - ”Managing OSS As an Integrated Part of Business” under COSS has been the foundation

for the Open Nordic virtual centre’s understanding of ”business models” as well as ”best practice”. For further information see: http://www.coss.fi/web/coss/research/ossi/publications

�) Again, the work of Finnish COSS, and especially the work of Mikko Puhakka, has been extremely helpful in choosing the defining categories of this repository.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration 7

Open source and Buy Off Companies that offer a proprietary license for their open-source software, in order for their customers to modify and redistribute software without having to make the code changes available to the public.

Mixed An open-source code base with proprietary add-ons.

Open Source and Service Companies that sell support and services around open source software.

As the illustration clearly shows, open source software related services is by far the most prominent of the five categories.5) Nearly three-quarters of the interviewed companies view the provision of services related to open source as their main source of income. This is significantly larger than any of the other areas of interest, and exactly twice as large as the second-place category concerning the aggregation and integration of open source software. Equally significant, only ten percent of the interviewed companies were basing their business upon offering a proprietary license for open source software. This picture is confirmed by the enterprises own description of their business model, for many (13 of 28 companies, or nearly half ) of the firms in question «support and service» (or deviations hereof, «main-tenance» e.g.) is a main area of business, offering support agreements, contracts or long or short-term subscriptions to support services.

If one counts the 9 companies (a little less than a third of the companies asked), who described themselves as providing training or services of an educational nature, and on top of this add the companies, who claimed to offer «consulting» (again nearly half ) as a main part of their business model, it becomes quite obvious how important the area of services is within the world of open source.6)

Least surprisingly maybe, is the fact that only a third of the interviewed companies were engaged in offering a proprietary license for their own open-source software allowing their customers to modify software. First of all, this business model tends to go somewhat against the grain of open source software and in fact to offer semi-closed/semi-open software and secondly this might still create some of the disadvantages normally attributed to proprietary software, albeit in a much smaller scale. However inte-restingly enough, it shows that there are varying degrees as to which you can open your software to other parties and thereby opening up a whole range of different possible modes of doing business – finding ones own particular niche, as it were. One the other hand (and despite the fact that the figure is signifi-

�) A clarifying remark regarding the illustration: The 28 companies were not limited to one single category, when stating their business model.

�) In an indirect manner this seem also to comply to the result sof the Norwegian NTNU-study, who also found the business sector of consultancies to be one of the more active proponents of open source software and related services. The NTNU report is available at http://research.idi.ntnu.no/oss/NTNU_friprog.pdf.

0% 20% �0% �0% 80%

Open Source and hardware

Open Source and agregation

Open Source and buy off

Mixed

Open Source and Service

q2 Business models

28,6%

35,7%

10,7%

32,1%

71,4%


cantly small), the category of buy-off in itself might show that open source is no longer regarded as an exclusive either-or dichotomy, but rather as a pick-and-choose element among others around which to build ones particular business.

A more common way, however of mixing proprietary and open source software is by offering open source software entailing proprietary add-ons. This might still not satisfy the OSS purist, nevertheless this model is less prone to the disadvantages of ordinary proprietary software. This might be at its most apparent in business models such as the dual licence model, where commercial developers are offered software under commercial licensing, while at the same time making the software available to the non-commercial user. The remaining categories of «open source and aggregation», «open source and hardware» along with the above mentioned category of open-source base «mixed» with proprietary add-ons all constitute around a third of the interviewees each. The first of the three categories, aggregational packaging and integra-tional development of open source software, being the largest of the three, and somewhat larger than the smallest of the three, concerned with the making hardware through the use of open source software. Again, as long as the world of open source is as diversified (and ever diversifying) a field as is the case, the continuous use, reuse, integration, reintegration and repackaging of software is unavoidably linked with the business practises in this area is hardly surprising.

1.2 The Question of Ecosystem Regarding the question of ecosystem and the character of the networks surrounding open source business models in the Nordic countries the interest of the Open Nordic Centre lay first and foremost in the mapping of ecosystems both regarding quantity and quality, and secondly in ways of furthering and/or strengthening current ecosystems. 7) The understanding of the term ecosystem seems to be posing certain difficulties due to the fact that answers are not always consistent (e.g. some use quantity and size as an indicator, others focus upon the quality of an ecosystem by using the words «weak», «strong» and the like). However, on a very general level it is possible to pull-out certain result of the answers given. Companies relate to ecosystems to varying degrees, and the strength and quality of the various ecosystems, they are a part of, differ greatly. Furthermore each ecosystem might be very different regarding its make-up, built more or less loosely around the collaboration on products, projects, firms or even rather minimal participation on a pure verbal level of «ideology», as it were. Participation ranges from the almost non-existent to taking part in a very strong and well-established network (although only a few companies claim to be participating in such an ecosystem). Quite a few companies complain about a weak network or ecosystem, some claiming not to be contributing much or only on an individual basis. Others seem to be posing the very same concern in a more positive vein; hoping for firmer structures, larger networks with more companies involved. Only very few are clai-ming to be part of a large network (not mentioning any actual size, however). A large subsection have a network consisting of 2 to 6 smaller companies, whereas others are coupled with one other (often larger) company, e.g. as partner or sub supplier. When it comes to the question regarding the entry of an ecosystem, the general trend seems to be an initial openness without any hesitations, albeit this is often expressed rather loosely. Answers vary from «the ecosystem is open» and «anybody is welcome» to «send an e-mail» - which might be interpreted as a general acceptance and willingness to participate in and furthering ones ecosystem, however without any actual strategy towards this end (which is admitted only by a few of the participants). Others claim that entry into the ecosystem would be based upon skills, knowledge and competencies. Others again would base this upon an evaluation of common goals and interests. Very few explicitly hold some sort of pledge of allegiance to the open source cause as an absolute condition.

7) A definition of an ecosystem might be, that it covers policies, strategies, processes, information, technologies, applications and stakeholders that together make up the technological environment for any given enterprise. Most importantly an ecosystem includes people – individuals who create, buy, sell, regulate manage and use open source technology. Therefore an ecosystem also covers the term usually referred to as “a network”.


1.3 Development from Traditional Licensing to Open Source Software The Nordic world of open source software, as it presents itself from within the repository, constitutes a diversified field with various different ways of doing business. The world of open source has gone a long way from being a primarily developer/programmer driven activity to being a thriving business sector including a rather large spectrum and different ways of doing business, be they based upon services, hardware work, integration and development of projects, products and regardless whether they take place within consultancies, as suppliers proper or partners etc.

Even if open source activities might not yet be the most main streamed part of the world of software, then it has, at least risen well above ground level.8) Although open source software may not always be the most visible part (often not even to the agents themselves) of the fauna and flora of the software industry, it is at least flourishing in the lower parts of the environment.

A clear indicator for the overall acceptance and widespread use of open source is the fact that a number of the respective companies seemingly quite easy cross the boundaries between closed and open source code software. The fact that possible business models within the open source world seem able to cover positions ranging from a traditional uncompromising open source purism to more tolerant (or at least pragmatist) attitudes towards the mixing of open and proprietary source code, only goes to show that open source quite naturally seem to have grown into and been adapted by an already existing world of business.

Of course it might be due to the simple necessity that some companies (to different degrees and in dif-ferent ways) offer a mix of open and closed source code, but nevertheless it shows the almost inescapable persistency, with which the open source software has been entering the market.

2 Developing New OSS projectsOn the basis of this initial repository little can be said about the actual influence of the respective ecosystems regarding further development and the proliferation of open source. However, it must be assumed that the existence of larger networks and of actual (and durable) ecosystems enhances the overall possibility of spreading open source code software (regarding particular products as well as network based projects embracing several players). An ecosystem that endures over time is a condition for the use, reuse and integration of open source software, as well as a requirement for further business opportunities for the particular agent, simply by enhancing the reachable surfaces and contact possibilities for the firm in question. Are open source businesses to be more than just another service provider for a particular section of the software industry (as we have seen the provision of services is almost a mandatory obligation for a vast majority of the questioned companies in the repository), then such a system or systems are the precondition for the further development of software. If already conquered territory is to be retained and safeguarded against the threat of evaporating along with the ending of projects, finishing of products or simply to turn into questions of maintenance, service and support, then a durable framework needs to be provided, in which the players are offered the continuity necessary for the proliferation and recycling of open source related products and projects: A framework where the highly celebrated openness actually can take place and continue to take place. Lasting networks and actual well-established ecosystems are conditions for maintaining positions already gained, for further developing and growth of open source software related projects. The great problem is not the quantity and amount of open source related projects – there seems to be an abundance of projects within this particular world of the software industry. A great many and very diverse open source related projects take place along the lines of a variety of different business models.But in general there is only a little ecosystem present to preserve and maintain the recycling, integration and further development of open source software. In a great many of the cases discussed here, what is needed therefore is the establishing of a structure that allows for both openness and continuity – a framework that at the same time provides players with the necessary structure of sustainability, without having to reverse the current developments within the dustry towards proprietary software once again.

8) For further evidence see also the EUC report “Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the Information and Communication Technologies sector in the EU” from 200�: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ict/policy/doc/200�-��-20-flossimpact.pdf

�0 The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

2.1 Internationalisation within Open Source Software Regarding the question of internationalisation within the world open source software or related activities, the theme of ecosystems equally plays an important role when it comes to the overcoming of national boundaries. In a certain sense this takes place more or less on its own and by itself in world marked by globalisation and an extreme widening of spheres of interest. Nonetheless, the furthering open source code software and related projects cannot be left completely to itself. It must be nurtured and structured around frameworks, that are easily accessible, albeit not too loosely defined.

The Open Nordic centre is off course not an ecosystem of its own. It is however intended to provide open source players in the Nordics with the frameworks within which to acquire access to larger networks, supporting the development of open source business ecosystems in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Basing itself on existing structures and open source promotion activities conducted by the different agencies in each of the Nordic countries, the Open Nordic virtual centre promotes open source solutions and is intended to enable networking between both providers and developers. The creation of a virtual Nordic code sharing site for public administrations has been the pivot in these efforts.

Photo: Joanna Myszak

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration ��

Part 2: Nordic Code Sharing Site (Work package 3)The first part of the creation of the Virtual Nordic code-sharing site is finished and we have established a close and rewarding collaboration. A common taxonomy have been agreed upon as well as the methods for exchanging information and make searches in all the Nordic repositories possible. Connections to other repositories are established and we can see a growing interest for what is happening in the Nordic countries. There are a number of other areas that we don’t have fully explored yet, where the repositories could benefit from continuous collaboration.

BackgroundIn general there are three different approaches on Open Source Software for the Public Administration to consider:

• The use of existing Open Source Software as a replacement for more expensive, heavy and functionally overloaded or less appropriate proprietary software. This is typically the case when you change to Open-Office, Linux, MySQL and other similar products. The reason for this kind of change is mainly eco-nomic, but vendor independence and the possibility to use cheaper and standardised hardware are also important aspects.

• The use of existing Open Source Software as a way of improving your IT-environment by introducing new features and functionality. This is typically the case when adding new software (or components) or changing your infrastructure. In the last years we have seen a number of implementations of Open Source Software as a way to create a more flexible and effective infrastructure by introducing middle-layer architectures, web services, SOA and other modern features. In this scenario there are complete applications as well as libraries and components to be used.

• The development of new software. This is the case when there is no software in the market meeting your needs. The public sector has many specialized task and duties to perform, and software vendors do not meet most of them. Apart from the central office environment, where you often find a mature and well-established IT-structure, most of the employees in the Public Sector lack the necessary IT-resources in order to be able to improve the efficiency in their daily work. When the Public Sector gets involved in developing new software it is mainly done by professional consultants and vendors.

The first two options are not that different from the usual way of acquiring software. You may have to chan-ge the way you do procurements and tenders, and you have to educate the people in charge of acquisition how to take advantage of the new possibilities brought by Open Source Software. One important aspect though for the Public Organizations is that they should share their knowledge and experience in order to improve the efficiency of the Public Sector in general. Specifications, the basis for procurement, evaluation criteria’s and other documents is easily shared and can reduce both time and efforts for other public organi-zations.

The third option, developing your own software, is something you have to take into careful considera-tion. The benefits of having a well suited software that fulfill your needs and the opportunity to offer your employees new functions and excellent IT-resources in their daily work are quite obvious, but the risk of ending up with a complex system that you have to support during its lifetime is evident. This is why sharing and re-use is of such great importance, lowering the risk of unique solutions used by just one organisation and instead create groups – communities – of public bodies and vendors developing and taking care of the software together.

When the Public Sector engages in developing software, the coding and development it’s almost always done by professional consultants. In some rare occasions the development is done by the ITC-department itself, but in general the Public Sector acts as buyers, specifying the functionality and performance, wor-king closely together with the vendor, monitoring the progress and testing the result. As a buyer you have to make sure that you are the owner of the resulting software so that you can share it with others as Open Source. Software developed by the Public Sector should be shared as Open Source Software whenever it’s possible. There are a number of licenses to choose between, so you will certainly be able to find one that suits your (and your lawyers) needs.


There are some general structures that have to be at hand in order to make it possible to share code deve-loped by the Public Administration. One is of course a place on Internet where you can publish your own code and find code from other organisations. Such a site is called a repository or forge. Another prerequi-site is knowledge and methods how to do share your code. Since this is a new phenomenon there are some uncertainty how to behave and what laws and regulations that could be of guidance. A third requirement is the insight and awareness that sharing and collaboration between the Public institutions is both necessary and rewarding. Changing the mindset of people is always a time consuming and patience proving process, but one that will pay off in the end.

In order to promote the sharing between the Public Sectors in the Nordics we have focused on creating a virtual repository for Open Source Software in the Nordic Countries, formed by the existing national repo-sitories.

• Repositories and sharing The following statement is the fundament on which we have built the Virtual Open Source Repository for the Nordic Countries: Software developed on behalf of the Public Sector should by default be published as Open Source and thereby made available for others to use.

Software developed by a public institution in order to provide a good and well-suited IT-support for the civil servants whit-in the organization may be as useful to other, similar public organizations. The work being done by one public body could therefore be of great value to another public body for a very low cost and result in a more efficient public sector and substantial cost savings on a national or even Nordic level. The structure and responsibilities of the public sector in the Nordic Countries are quite similar and even more so between the public bodies in each country. The potential of sharing and collaboration are in that respect quite obvious if we can provide structures and methods for sharing and re-use.

Repositories aimed at the public sector can be found all over Europe. A common EU-initiative called OSOR have been under construction for some time and was launched at a meeting in Brussels in the mid of June 2008. During the project participants from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have been involved in the OSOR-project and have had some substantial impact on the result, meaning that in the coming years the Nordic repositories will find it easy to collaborate with OSOR, on a policy level as well on the technical side. The strategies behind the Nordic repositories has proven to work very well and can provide the Nordic Countries with a solid platform in the European context.

The Nordic repositories (now present in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) has focused on publis-hing open source software develop by the public sector and at the same time strengthen and visualize the collaboration with the private vendors. The Public Sector needs professional tools developed by profes-sional programmers, developed in a tight collaboration with the people that are going to use it.

The Nordic software archives (as most of the software repositories) have two separate parts (except from the Finnish archive that so fort just have the website):

• A user-oriented area, usually a website with information, news, search, forums and publications.• A development area with software archives, bug reporting, development timelines and other technical

oriented tools.


The websiteThe website makes it possible for the intended users to find and learn about the available software without being programmers. The person responsible for the software can publish specifications, user experiences, the plans and ideas for further development and find others to discuss with.

In order to create a virtual repository it is important to establish common structures. Using a common taxonomy makes it possible to search for software in other repositories. During the project we have decided to use a simplified version of the IDABC taxonomy for categorization of the published software. This will make it easy to compare software in our national archives as well as to collaborate with archives outside the Nordics. The IDABC taxonomy may in the future have to be combined with other of taxonomies and other ways of categorization, for example user tagging.

News feeds (RSS) are a common and useful way of distributing news to other websites or persons. All the Nordic repositories use RSS as a way of sharing information and updates. RSS is also the basis for the pos-sibility to find software in other archives by a single search in one of the repositories. RSS-feeds stored in a local database using the agreed taxonomy enable you to search in your native tongue and find software in other repositories. Even if you are not familiar with the language of the description of the software you at least know that the software you have found is within your line of search.

Another part of the website concerns the vendors and the question of how to avoid lock-ins and instead create a vibrant market with enterprises competing with their knowledge and skills. One important aspect of the Open Source licenses is the opportunity to replace one vendor with another. With proprietary soft-ware you usually has to replace both the vendor and the software if you for some reason isn’t satisfied with the software you are using. Using Open Source Software puts you in the position of choosing a new vendor but keep on with the software. The vendor that has been engaged in the development of the software is of course in a better position than other vendors, due to the knowledge acquired during the development and that can lead to a sort of vendor lock-in. It’s important that the structure of the repository has some me-chanism that stimulates competition and give all vendors, not just the prior one, the opportunity to offer support and further development. One way to deal with this issue is to give the vendors the option to list them selves onto the software they feel that they can support. The vendors declare by listing them onto a specific piece of software that they have the knowledge and skill needed in order to offer good services based around that software.

Developer’s areaApart from the user-oriented website the repositories also have a more technical structure, aimed for deve-lopers, programmers and project leaders. This is the forge, the place where the code is published and the de-velopment is made visible. The code could emerge in any of the different development phases: the first raw version, more developed stages to the final code, version 1.0. There are functions for reporting a bug, version tracking, and the appearance of new builds and of course the timeline for the development and when the different versions are to be released. At the present stage these parts of the Nordic repositories are used as archives, and they contain the first major versions, 1.0 of the published software. In the future there may be some project that will use more, maybe even all of the functions of the forges.

A virtual Nordic code-sharing site – work and resultsDuring the last 18 months we have held five workshops regarding the collaboration between the forges. The discussions have focused on taxonomy, strategies and policies, exchange of news and how to populate the repositories. The two existing repositories have strengthened their position and two more repositories have been established. The work with the repositories has attracted a lot of media coverage and interest from a lot of people. The experiences and findings have been discussed and described in workshops, seminars and conferences. The managers of the Nordic repositories have been active in the European community and played a vital role in the progress of OSOR, the EU-repository. The discussions and collaboration between the Nordic countries have been of great importance, creating a platform for the Nordic Public Sector and the Nordic vendors in the European Open Source Community. A common taxonomy have been agreed upon as well as the methods for exchanging information and make searches in all the Nordic repositories possible.

�� The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Two of the repositories are built upon the same software, a practical example of successful code sharing. We have focused on how to promote and make it easier to share code, not just deposit it in the forge. Some examples are present from Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but this is an area that has to be explored and investigated further.At all the major Open Source Conferences aimed at the Public Sector, both in the Nordics as well in Europe, the Nordic initiative regarding code sharing, collaboration and promotion of open Source Software has been presented by speakers from the participating organisations. Connections to other repositories are established and we can see a growing interest for what is happening in the Nordic countries.

The repositories are now parts of Competence Centres in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The question of Open Source in the Public Sector is not limited to just use and re-use of software. Open standards, architectural issues, security, quality and the building of communities are other aspects that have to be put into consideration. By forming Competence Centres the repositories are part of a more coherent context and can play an important role in a modernisation of the Public Sector.

Conclusion and recommendations The first part of the Virtual Nordic code-sharing site is finished. We have a close collaboration and methods for exchange of news are established. There are a number of other areas that we don’t have fully explored yet, where the repositories could benefit from continuous collaboration. A common Nordic software market for Opens Source Software is not that far away if we continue with our efforts.

The Nordic initiative have played a part in forming the European repository and we have the oppor-tunity to establish a strong and vibrant platform for the Nordic Public Sector as well as for the Nordic vendors. The EU-repository – OSOR – will undergo some serious development the coming years and it’s important that the Nordic countries keep on collaborating with OSOR, but even more important play an active part in the process. We have to examine the nature of communities where the Public Sector is to be involved; this is so far a totally unexplored area. The traditional Open Source community can be described as a developer- community, with a lot of active programmers. This is a model that’s not suitable for the Public Sector as is. We should try to use the very successful community model but with some moderations so that ordinary users can participate together with project leaders and developers. Both research and case studies is needed to understand how re-use of publicly developed software can occur. Code-sharing is not just about publishing code, but more important about re-use, collaborative development and refining the software in order to create a more effective Public Sector working with well suited, specialised software.

Photo: Rune Tollisen


Part 3: Developer Networking

Introduction

Open source is a working model and unique creation of software developers and developer communities. Distributed development and the ability of talented developers to solve meaningful problems collaboratively is - now and in for future - the core success factor of open source. As the role of open source in software business has rapidly increased, it has become very important for software companies to understand how open source communities work and how they can interact with these communities, their culture and their ways of operation.

The starting point of this work package was an analysis of the network relationships of open source developers. An illustration of these relationships is given in figure 1. The figure indicates that the network relationships are very complex and versatile.

Based on this analysis and related discussion, the Open Nordic team soon realised that in the further steps of the work package there is a clear need to focus on some aspects of the networking and collaboration. Based on the mission of the overall Open Nordic project, that is to support and promote open source business in the Nordic countries, a selection was made to focus on business - developer community relationships as illustrated in the blue area in the figure 1.

Following this focus, the refined objective of the work package is to:• provide a summary of the latest information about the fundamentals of the nature open

source developer community – business collaboration • provide insights about best practices related to business - developer community interaction

and collaboration.

other communities

myproject

othercompanies

My own company

Universities &Research

professional networks:LinkedIn, Ohloh etc

usersmy

community

OSS Developer Networks

Figure 1. The network relationships of open source developers.

�� The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The Finnish Tekes-funded research project “Managing OSS as an Integrated Part of Business (OSSI)” (2005-2007) has been a major source of knowledge and material in the work package. The researchers of this project have presented the results is several events of the project. OSSI- project developed a management framework by examining the phenomena of open source from the perspectives of sociology, technology and business. The business perspective was further divided in the research project to legal aspects, economics, business models, competitive strategy and value networks. For further information and reports of the project, please visit http://www.coss.fi/web/coss/research/ossi .

Types of open source communities and collaborationIn a survey conducted by the OSSI-project among a group of leading open source communities (Gnome, Eclipse, Debian and MySQL), the overall attitude of communities towards company participation was sur-prisingly positive. Thus, the main question related to developer – business -collaboration is not if it is desirable and beneficial, but rather how it can be organised. The research groups suggests that FOSS communities may be divided into different categories according to idealised types, and that answering to the “how” question of participation must be differentiated according to the typology.

Traditionally, OSS communities have been started as volunteer projects (e.g., GNU project, Linux kernel, De-bian). The traditional picture of hacker culture (see, e.g., Raymond 1999, Levy 1984) as an informal self-organi-zing bazaar of having fun while programming has largely been based on volunteer communities like these. Ho-wever, the traditional picture has recently changed considerably with more and more companies participating in OSS communities either by letting their employers work on OSS or by directly hiring developers working on OSS. Increasingly companies also initiate OSS communities either by releasing previously closed code or by directly engaging in OSS development from the start.

Consequently, a continuum of communities from volunteer- based to company-based has appeared. Most generally, this shift can be observed on the level of the ethos of communities: the ideologically organized ways in which labour is understood, maintained and given meaning. The self-organizing volunteer way of “working for fun” has been dubbed “hacker ethics”. For example Pekka Himanen wants to explicitly contrast hacker ethics with the more well-known salary-based commercial ethics that prevails in modern corporations, where a divi-sion and rationalization of labour takes place based on institutional rules and hierarchies.

Consequently, the characterization of OSS communities to volunteer-based or company- based does not mean (mainly) the initiation of the project, but rather the basic ideological framework that motivates and structures the operations of the community. Typically, a company-based community has hierarchical structures, deploys monetary rewards and divides labour on the basis of pre-set goals. In contrast, volunteer-based communities are self-organized, ground motivation on extra-monetary rewards and work on the basis of informal goal-setting (either anarchic, democratic or meritocratic).

Today OSS communities are typically a mix of the two extremes. The work ethics of a community are closely tied to forms of decision making. Typically a self-organized community will favour decentralized decision ma-king. One extreme is given by the decision on release dates in Debian: whenever the release is ready. In contrast, software development by and in a company will typically be centralized, with one source of authority deciding on, e.g., roadmaps and schedules. A middle ground between these two extremes is often sought by establishing a foundation or a similar organ that gives voice both to volunteers and the various institutions taking an interest in a given software development project. The foundation may guide development and structure schedules.

Furthermore, communities may be classified on the basis of their age or maturity, size and the type of license in use:

Size of the community. It can be assumed that a larger community is always more sustainable but potentially increases problem complexity for company participation. The size of the community must also reach a certain minimum size in order to make the open source effect work.

Maturity of the community. This refers to the strength of the social and cultural ties, traditions and practices. A mature community is often old in age, and has developed common guidelines and best practices.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration �7

Communication and decision-making structures of the community. Different systems of governance exist in free/open source software communities, including democracy, meritocracy and dictatorship. Here special attention is given at how centralised communication is. This tells something about the governance structure, hierarchy and bottlenecks.

License. The type of free/open source software license chosen by the community potentially affects who will participate in the community. Licenses can be classified based on how strong copyleft effect they have. GNU General Public License, for example, is a strong copyleft license, while Eclipse Public License gives more freedom, and licenses like the BSD license are not copyleft at all.

When these four elements are combined with the volunteer/company axis, differences between communities can be identified as can be seen in figure 2 (with examples).

Hybridity

Volunteer Mixed Company

Small Wordpress MySQL, Laika

Size Medium OpenBSD Mozilla OpenSolaris

Large DebianLinux (kernel)

GNOMEEclipse

Young Gnash Laika

Maturity Developing Wordpress Mozilla OpenSolaris, Darwin

Established GNU, Debian Linux (kernel) MySQL

Decentralized Debian Eclipse

Decision-making

Balanced Linux (kernel)

Centralized GNU Mozilla MySQL

Non-copyleft OpenBSD Apache

License Weak copyleft MozillaEclipse, OpenSolaris,

Darwin

Strong copyleft GNU

Linux (kernel) GNOME

MySQL

Figure 2. Classification of open source communities.


In the classification above, we can see both differences and similarities between communities. Based on this analysis, some ideal types can be identified which characterise some of the most prominent differences between communities. Four ideal types of open source communities can be identified:

• Centralized, company-driven, small community (e.g. MySQL) • Large community, several companies, business work ethics (e.g. Eclipse) • Large community, several companies, hacker background (e.g. Linux kernel) • Volunteer, decentralized, large (e.g. Debian)

Correspondingly, different types of business-developer co-operation can be considered suitable with these types. Typically, small communities are more vulnerable. Here the risk of losing high-profile developers is considerable. On the other end, large communities often contain some inertia and may be susceptible to forks and internal disputes. From the perspective of sustainability, a large community that has also many participating companies is ideal. Diversity is the key to longevity in the open source ecosystem, as elsewhere.

Based on the research and current knowledge, the following dos and donts for company- community collaboration can be presented for different types of communities:

Centralized, company-driven, small community

do: direct co-operation with the company

do: customization in co-operation with the company

risk: sustainability dependent on single company

Large community, several companies, business work ethics

do: involve own developers in the community

do: collaboration with companies

do: genuine contribution to community

do: involvement in the decision making organs (e.g., Eclipse Foundation)

don’t: expect spontaneous development of code

Large community, several companies, hacker background

do: involve own developers in the community

do: quality contributions (“Show me the code!”)

do: involvement in the Open Source Development Labs

do: good open source citizenship and sharing

do: acknowledge community values

don’t try to push development without participating and contributing

Volunteer, decentralized, large community

do: support community (public acknowledgement)

do: acknowledge community values

do: be aware of licensing policies

do: in case of a problem, do-it-yourself

don’t: use the software against the license terms

risk: internal tensions

risk: hard to keep deadlines

Table 1. Do’s and don’ts for companies collaborating with different kinds of communities.


Open source community sustainability evaluation

As several studies on OSS communities indicate, open source communities do share some common characteristics (male dominance, relatively high level of education), but are also different in important respects. For instance, the developers of Eclipse and MySQL are as a trend roughly ten years older than those of GNOME and Debian. Also the motivations for participating in OSS development are different (for details, see Mikkonen, Vainio & Vadén 2007).

Consequently, in open source business we need tools to assess the risks that the various communities face. Recognising some of the bottle-necks of community growth and sustainability will help a long way in establishing fruitful co-operation and managing open source business risks.

Below, the evaluatory factors of the open source community risk profile are grouped in four sets, cultural, social, legal and economic. Social sustainability of a community relies on the individual characteristics of its members, on its size and form, and the division of labour and power in the community. Cultural sustainability of a com-munity is defined by its traditions and history that create and shape its social and ethical norms and practices. While social sustainability is a matter of interaction between individuals, cultural sustainability is something that is created during a longer time period as the community matures. The importance of legal risk management in the OSS world has risen sharply during the last decade. The economic significance of software has drawn also the attention of the legal community and as the result the risk of getting sued for patent or copyright infringement is today very real. Finally, economic sustainability is one matter in volunteer based communities, and quite another in communities led by strong companies. However, for both extremes the problem of resources is anything but solved, and different models are constantly evolving and experimented with.

Based on the current understanding and findings of the OSSI-research project, the following check list for identification of open source community characteristics and risks can be presented.

Social dimension

�. Are there more than 20 active developers?

2. Does the community have a trusted main developer?

�. Does the community have developers with high technical skills?

�. Is the project cool enough the attract new developers?

Cultural dimension

�. Does the community have a charter that defines the common principles and goals? 2. Is the development process open and inclusive?

�. Does the community have members who participate for ideological reasons?

�. Does the community have members that work for pay?

Legal dimension

�. Does the community have legal expertise?

2. Does the software use a major open source license?

�. Does the software handle legally risky topics (p2p, encryption etc.)?

�. Does the economic footprint of the community attract law suits?

Economic dimension

�. Is the maintenance of technical infrastructure on a sustainable basis?

2. Is some of the development work funded by companies?

�. Are some companies dependent on the community? �. Does the community have funding for conferences and workshops?

Table 2. Check list for defining open source community sustainability.


Evaluation of open source software

A reasoning to use open source software as a part of business has two sides, internal and external. Usually most of analysis focuses on external issues, for instance how to select the best piece of software or how to assess the viability of a particular community. However, internal issues may play vital role in succeeding implementation of open source. Internal analysis should start with recognizing current and future needs.

Questions that are useful in recognizing the reasons behind selecting open source software are, for example, the following:

• Analyzing time scale and urgency • How soon the output should be on market? • What is the overall life cycle of the output?• Analyzing firms own resources and competences• What competences you need to a) select b) acquire c) maintain a software (this issue relates closely to outsourcing/purchasing) • How much resources you are able to invest for this issue?• Analyzing the reasons to use open source software• Can you recognize your explicit and implicit motives?• Why it is a strategic decision?• What are the main drivers?• What is the proposed use: are you going to use that particular piece of software in experimenting, piloting or production? • Analyzing the status of relevant information• Do you know what you do not know? • Analyzing the future• When the decisions are made, what consequences will follow?

An assessment task is about tradeoff between accuracy and time (i.e., money). Depending on answers on the questions above, one should make decisions what will be the needed level of information. An analytical and detailed approach may be too time- or resource- consuming when the software is just being experimented.

In the OSSI- project four evaluation tools for assessing Open Source products or projects were identified as the “best-of-breed”:

• Optaros’ Enterprise Readiness (ER) model• Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) by B. Golden• Model for Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software (QSOS)• Business Readiness Rating (BRR).

The project concludes that using a method like BRR is recommendable when a maturity of OSS is under eva-luation. The value is not only in the final result the method produces, but the processitself. It gives a structured way for investigating the software product. The final number indicating the maturity does not reveal some risks of the software. On the other hand a small number definitely reveals that the product is not mature.

The lessons learned by using the existing evaluation methods led the research group to believe that a two-step evaluation is necessary. The user-role and intended use have a tremendous effect on how the software, the com-munity and the interaction should be approached. Not only are communities different from each other, also the user-roles necessitate various types of analysis and involve different types of risks.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration 2�

Conclusions and recommendations The OpenNordic project (as we ended up using as project name) has delivered an extremely valuable contribution in the work to tap the OSS value potential in the Nordics. The project has created a number of Nordic meeting places for players usually operating primarily on a national basis:

• The national OpenSource Competency Centers• Public sector representatives at both national and regional levels.• Universities with OSS related education and research spanning academic areas from sociology, law, economic, business administration to computer Science• The ICT Business Associations and their OSS related networks• Politicians influencing: - the development of ICT sector and specifically the software industry - How the public sector buy, develop and support the software behind all the new digital public services. Most of these meeting places will survive the project and make a permanent contribution to Nordic collabora-tion. Still some of them needs to be fed and nurtured by new projects in order to reach critical mass. The project has effectively demonstrated how national strengths can be built into Nordics strengths by open collaboration and sharing of software, competencies, research, events and conferences. We have also been able to build a joint Nordic brand, OpenNordic, holding the potential to add a joint Nordic identity to OSS related work by vendors, users and academia and helping the Nordics be more visible on the global arena . The projects have identified a number of areas where future collaboration will make a big difference. The key cooperation areas and their specific challenges are illustrated below.

Collaboration area Key challenge Who could participate Political focus on the OSS opportunity for the Nordics- both as builders of an advanced public eService offering and as a business case for increased software based export.

Move current strong political support in Norway to more countries and make the Norwegian political support more robust.

Governments, Nordic council, Public agencies

Sharing of code for use in private and public sectors and building of sustainable communities around the code

Only a small fraction of code shared in current repositories are being used and enhanced because they lack an active community and an ecosystem . We need to learn more involved actors the best practices of building a sustainable community/ecosystem

The national Competency centers in collaboration with OSS vendor association, developer and user communities and related Research and Education institutions

Procurement of software based solutions in public sector

Current procedures, buying cultures and competencies of public purchasers are keeping OSS based solutions and vendors out of the public sector

Governments, public agencies and bodies.

OSS related education and research

A nonexistent and at best a very fragmented offering in an area where the biggest growth barriers is the availability of talents

Nordic Universities and University Colleges, research institutions in technology, social sciences, economic and business development.

Venture Capital interest and funding availability

Lack of insights into OSS related business models, practices and strategies

Business angels with experience in OSS. VC associations, ICT associations.

Strengthening the OpenNordic brand and establish more permanent transnordic events and communities

A large portion of the OSS related events and networks are national only. This reduces our ability to make Nordic and global collaborations succeed in the global arena

Current “owners” of the OpenNordic brand; primarily the competency centers, the ICT associations and the current networks controlling key OSS events.


The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration I

APPENDIX 1: Summary of WP Responsible and DeliveriesTheprojecthasorganizedin5workpackages(WP)

Work package 1ProjectadministrationandmanagementMainResponsible:COSSFinland(creatingawebsiteandarepository,gatherandstructuredata)andIKT-NorgeNorway(reportingtoNICandorganizingmeetings)Otherresponsible:Allpartnersmustcontribute

Work package 2CreatearepositoryofbusinessmodelsbestpracticeofOSSprojectsintheNordicsMainResponsible:Foreningenforopensourceleverandører(OSL)DenmarkOtherresponsible:Allpartnersmustcontribute

Work package 3 CreateavirtualNordiccodesharingsite.Mainresponsible:TheSwedishAssociationofLocalAuthoritiesandtheFederationofSwedishCountyCouncils.Otherresponsible:Allpartnersmustcontribute

Work package 4 DevelopernetworkingMainresponsible:COSS,FinlandOtherresponsible:Allpartnersmustcontribute

Work package 5 NordicconferenceandpublicrelationsMainresponsible:IKT-Norge,NorwayOtherresponsible:Allpartnersmustcontribute

PLANNED DELIVERIES

WP1: Project administration and management

WP2: Create a repository of business models best practice of OSS projects in the NordicsFindandstructuredevelopmentprojectsintheNordicsHostNordicmeetingwherecriteriaofsuccessarebeingagreeduponHostNordicconferenceonthesubjectsHostNordicconferenceonOSScompaniesandfundingwithNordicVCs

WP3 Create a virtual Nordic code sharing site. HostNordicworkshopsontheaspectsofsharingcodeingeneral,andthepublicsectorinparticularPublishandspreadexperienceandknowledgeonongoingworkonsharingsoftwarerepositoryinSweden,donebySALAR.ExplorethecodesharinginitiativesintheNordiccountriesConnecttheNordicrepositoriesintocreateacommonstructureCollaboratewithdifferentrepositoriesinEUandparticipateinestablishingtheEU-repository,aninitiativebyIDABC.HostNordicworkshopsonthedifferentaspectsofsharingintellectualpropertydevelopedandownedbythepublicsector.

WP4:Developer networkingInformationaboutrelevantandsuccessfuldevelopercommunitiesintheNordics.HostNordicmeetingwherecriteriaofrelevanceandsuccessarebeingagreeduponHostNordicconferenceforOSSdevelopersfromrelevantcommunities

WP5: Nordic conference and public relations when: during whole projectGivemediaetalinformationontheprogressoftheproject.HavejointNordicpressconferenceatleasttwotimesduringtheprojects.FocusingonthedeliverablesfromtheprojectsandtheoverallstatusofOSSintheNordics.Hostaconferenceattheendoftheprojectswherebusiness,public,sector,andpoliticiansareinvitedtogetherwithrepresetativesfrommedia.

II The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

A business-model for exchange of software and knowledgeThepurposeofthispaperistoinvestigateandevaluatebusinessmodelsforthedevelopmentofajointNordichubforopensourcesoftware.

InDenmarkthepossibilitiesforthishasbeenresearchedduringa2006surveyofperceptionsofandinhibitorstotheuseofopensourcesoftware.TheresultsgatheredfromthisresearchwilbepresentedinthispaperalongwiththeexperiencesoftheDanishSoftwareExchangeandthebusinessmodelitisbasedon.

Therearemanyaspectstobeawareofwhendevelopingabusinessmodeltouseinamarketofopensourcesoftware.Firstofalltheparticipantsinthemarketmustallhaveanetgainfromtheiractions.Ifnot,thentherearenoincentivetoparticipate.Thesegainscanbeeconomicgains,butalsomoresubtlegains,ie.prestigeetc.Ifthemarketaretofunctionwell,thereisaneedfortheparticipantstohaveanincentivetoreturnthereandkeepsupplyingtheirknowledgeandactivities.Thereforethemarketplaceshouldbeanengineforongoingcontactamongthedifferentagentsinthemarketandnotonlyasingle-useplace.

Basedontheobservationsmentionedabove,itisimportanttotietheusersofthemarketplacetogetherbothcrossingthenationalboundariesandtheordinarysupplier/customerrelationship.Thisargumentwillbefurtherexplainedbelow–alsobackedbytheresultsfromthesurveyasdescribedinthenextchapter.

Results of large survey on Danish software use and perceptionsIntherecentyearsincreasingattentionhasbeengiventothefieldofopensource.EUhasbeeninvolvedintheFLOSS-project1),whichhascontributedalargenumberofstudiesofstructureandengagementwithinthemarketofopensourcesoftware.

TheFLOSS-projecthasexaminedthemarketforopensourceinanumberofdifferentcountriesinrelationtouseofsoftwareandgeneralattitudestowardsthedifferenttypesofsoftwarelicences.

Thestudies,carriedoutin2001–2002,haveuncoveredmanyaspectsofbothpublicandprivatecompaniesuseandopinionsonopensourcesoftware.Furthermore,thecompanies’opinionsonprosandconsoftheuseofthesoftwarehavebeenuncovered.

Subsequently,theFLOSS-projecthasdevelopedtheFLOSS-POLS-projectwhich,atthemoment,isexaminingtheeffectsthattheuseofopensourcesoftwarehasondifferentareasofEuropeansociety.

APPENDIX 2: Business models for open source and nordic collaboration

Abusiness-modelforexchangeofsoftwareandknowledge 1ResultsoflargesurveyonDanishsoftwareuseandperceptions 2Theuseofoperatingsystems 5Softwareapplications 7Decisionparameters 8Generaldecisionparameters 9Operationalreliability 10Flexibility 10Security 11Thedecision-makingprocess 14Prosandcons 16Summaryofthestudy 18Collaborationamongthesuppliersandconsumers–Supplier-drivensites. 18TheDanishSoftwareExchange. 19BetterSoftware 20Breakingbarriers 20Customapplicationscreatesinteraction 20Adesignframework 21Conclusion 21

�) See more about FLOSS at http://flossproject.org

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration III

TheFLOSS-POLSdescribestheirresearchobjectiveasfollows:

”TheFLOSSproject(fundedbyIST/FP5)resultedinthesinglelargestknowledgebaseonopensourceusageandde-velopmentworldwide,andfilledsomeofthesegaps,atleastinourunderstandingoftheeconomicanddevelopmentmodelsbehindopensource.Notenoughknowledgeexists,however,inthecriticalareaofpolicyformation:theimpactofpolicychoicesonopensource,andtheeffectofopensourceonavailablepolicyoptionsandgovernmentactionsarenotwellknown.ThesupportactionbuildsontheFLOSSprojecttofillinimportantgapsintheunderstandingofopensourcewithafocusonspecificgapsinthepolicyapplicationdomain.”2)

FLOSS-POLSwanttoanalysethefollowingaspects:

• evaluatinggovernmentpolicyonopensource• understandinggenderissuesinopensource• modellingopensourceasasystemforcollaborativeproblem-solving

Thestudiesinthisprojectarestillrunningbutalreadynowthereisalargeamountofdataatdisposalconcerningtheuseofopensourcesoftwareinpublicorganisations,anddevelopmentofexperiencesandskillsinrelationtoopensource.

FurtherstudiesinrelationtotheuseofopensourceinthepublicsectorhavebeencarriedoutinSweden,wheretheapplicabilityofpubliclydevelopedsoftwaremustbedistributedbysharingthedevelopedsoftwareasopensource.

”Computersoftwarethathasbeendevelopedwithtaxrevenuesshouldbeusedtobenefitasmanycitizensaspossible.Thoseresponsiblefordevelopingthissoftwareshouldalsoparticipateindistributingthebenefitstoothers.Promoteco-ordinationanddiffusionofcomputerprogramsamongpublicauthoritiesbymakingthissoftware‘opensource’!3)

TheSwedishprojectanalysesthepossibilitiesandlegalimplicationsofissuingpubliclydevelopedsoftwareasopensource.ThisanalysishasbeencontinuedinresearchfromanotherprojectfinancedbytheEUcalledPublicSector&opensourcesoftware(PS-OSS).4)Theprojectanalysestheeffectitwouldhaveonsocietyandsoftwaredevelopmentifpublicauthoritiesissuetheirsoftwareasopensource,andwhetheropensourceingeneral,isthebestmethodforknowledgesharingandexchangeofsoftware.

InaworkingpaperfromNovember2006thesequestionsarethoroughlydealtwithbyrealexamplesfromdifferentpartsofEurope.

Thestudiesthathavebeenmentioned,whichareallrunningorhavebeencompleted,havecontributedsubstantiallytotheoverallknowledgeabouttheuseandpotentialofopensourcesoftware.

Tosupportandbuildtheknowledgeofincentivesandstrategies,asupplementalstudywascarriedoutinDenmark.Thepurposeofthisstudyistouncoverwhatincentivescompanieshave,asabasisfortheirchoiceanduseofsoftware.Whyhavetheychosenthewaytheyhave,anddotheyhaveanythoughtsaboutchangeofstrategy?Thestudywascar-riedoutinspring2006inMarchandApril.

Atotalof8,000possiblerespondentsweredrawnoutforthecustomerstudy.Aftertreatmentofdataandeliminationofbranches,duplicatesetc.,7,764possiblerespondentsremained.Fromthese,779companieschosetoanswerthequestionnaire.Thismeansthattheresponserateofthisstudyisjustabove10%.

Forthisstudyrespondentswerechosenonthebasisoftheirprimarytradeassociation,thewayitisregisteredintheDanishcompanyregistry.TogetapicturethatreflectsthesituationinDenmark,ithasbeenaimedtotargettheques-tionnairestudyatagroupofrespondentsthathasthesametradedistributionasDenmarkingeneral.

In2004therewere282,968registeredcompaniesinDenmark.5)Thismeansthatthequestionnairestudyincludesanswersfrom2,75‰ofDanishcompanies.StatisticsDenmarkdividescompaniesinlinesofbusinessesaccordingtodifferentsystems.Themostsuperiorsystemiscalledthe9-breakdownandbreakstheDanishcompaniesdown,asthenameimplies,into9linesofbusiness.Inthetablebelow,therelationbetweenallDanishcompaniesandtherespon-dentsofthestudyisshown.

2) From http://www.flosspols.org/outline.php�) From http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=20��) See more on http://www.publicsectoross.info/�) Statistics Denmark – Statistikbanken.dk. The number for 200� is the most recent available number.

IV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

All companies 200� Actual respondentsLine of business Number Percentage Number Percentage�. Agriculture, fishery and extraction of raw material ��,�� .�% 28 �.�%2. Industry �8,�� .�% �00 �2.8%�. Energy and water supply �,�� .�% �� .�%�. Building and planning 28,�� 0.2% �� .7%�. Trade, hotel and restaurants �2,�0� 2�.�% �2 �.7%�. Transport, post and tele ��,��7 �.2% 28 �.�%7. Financing and business service �8,��7 2�.�% �8 �.�%8. Public and private services �8,7�� .7% 2�0 �0.8%�. non-informed activity / Other �� 0.2% �87 2�.0%Total 282,��8 �00% 77� �00%

Source: Statistics Denmark – Statistikbanken.dk, and own numbers.

Asseeninthetableabove,therearesimilaritiesbutalsodifferencesbetweenthelinedivisioninthequestionnairestudyandintheofficialtradestatistics.Thisimbalancecouldbeduetorespondentshavingtostatetheirlineassocia-tionthemselves,andthatithasbeenchosentoincludeallpublicorganstoensureahighresponseratefromthispart.Thiscausesacertainpossibilityoferrorsincepartofthecompanieshaven’tbeenableto,orhadknowledgeabout,theirownlineofbusinessasregardsstatingtheirassociationinrelationtothe9-breakdown,whichisseenintheverylargeresponserateof“Uninformedactivity/Other”,bytherespondents.

Intheillustrationbelow,thenumbersfromtheabovetableareillustrated.

Distribution of lines of business in the questionnaire study compared to general line of business statistics

Distribution of lines of business for companies

The line of business numbering refers to the numbering in the table aboveSource: Statistics Denmark – Statistikbanken.dk, and own calculations.

Again,itappearsthattherearecertaindifferences.Asourceoferrorcouldbe,thattherearedifferencesbetweenthelinesofbusinessinrelationtohowinclinedtheyaretoanswerquestionnaires.Itisobviousthatrespondentsfromthepublicorganisations(group8)havebeendiligentrespondentscomparedtotheprimaryproducersingroup1thathaven’tansweredtoashighadegree.Morethan30percentofthestudy’srespondentsarefromgroup8thatincludespublicandprivateservices.Thiscoversthetotalpublicadministrationandalargenumberofpublicandprivateservicetrades.Again,itmustbeunderlined,thattherearemorepublicorganisationsinoursamplethanthecorrespond-ingshareinDenmark.Becauseofthesomewhatunevendistributioncomparedtothegeneraldistributionoflinesofbusinessinthecountry,analyseswithinlinesofbusinessmustbeseeninthelightofthedistributionofanswersthatappear.Withtheabovereservationsconcerningdivisioninlinesofbusiness,theresultsofthestudywillbecoveredinthefollowing.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration V

The use of operating systemsIntheprefaceofthequestionnaire,basicinformationaboutthecompany’schoiceanduseofsoftwareisobtained.

Generally,itisabundantlyclearthatMicrosoft’sproductshaveanincrediblylargeuserbase,andthattheuseoftheWindowscontrolsystemisincrediblywidelydistributed.Theinformationinthestudyforbothdesktopcomputersandserversisseeninthetwoillustrationsbelow.

Source: Own calculations

Distribution of operating systems on desktop computersDistribution of operating systems on servers


Asseenintheillustrationsabove,WindowsisdominantinDanisheconomiclife.Fordesktopmachines,whichareordinarycomputerswhichthemajorpartofofficeusershaveaccessto,thedominanceofWindowsismostpro-nounced.80%ofrespondentsstate,thattheprimaryoperatingsystemondesktopcomputersisWindowsXP.Tothis,13%isaddedwhichuseWindows2000;2%,thatusesWindowsNTand2%thatuseearlierWindows-versions.Intotalthisbecomes97%ofdesktopcomputersinDenmarktohavesomekindofWindowsinstalledastheprimarycontrolsystem.Atthesametime,thisresultsinonly3%ofdesktopcomputersinDanishcompanieshavingothercontrolsys-temsthanWindowsinstalledontheircomputers.ThisincludesthecontrolsystemsonMac-computersandalsoLinuxandotheropensourcecontrolsystems.

ForserversinDanishcompaniesapicturealsoappearsofgreatdominanceofdifferentWindowsversions,withtheserversystemWindows2003asthepredominantsystem.Thissystemaccountsfor33%ofinstalledcontrolsystemsontheservers.ThedifferentversionsofWindowsaccountforattotalof88%oftheserversystems.

Consequently,the”alternative”systems,thatis,allothersystemsthanWindows,havealargershareoftheservermarketthanthedesktopmarketforDanishcompanies,butdespitethis,itisamarketthatisverymuchdominatedbyproductsfromMicrosoft.

Software applicationsBesidescontrolsystems,asdescribedabove,acomputerneedssomeapplicationstorunonthecontrolsystemtogivevaluetotheuser.Inthequestionnairestudy,thesoftwareiscategorizedinrelationtotheshareofproprietaryoropensourcesoftware.Inthequestionnairestudy,therespondentshavebeenaskedwhattypesofsoftwaretheyuseprimarily,ontheircomputers.

Intheillustrationbelowthedistributionofthecompanies’useofdifferenttypesofsoftwareisshown.

Distribution of software types on servers and desktop machines.


Asseenintheillustrationabove,thereisastrongtendencyforbothserversanddesktopcomputers,tousesoftwareproductsownedbysuppliersorthatareproprietary.Thedifferencebetweentheserveranddesktopmarketisnotsobigwhenitcomestotheuseofthedifferenttypes.Themaindifferenceisthatagreatershareofopensourcesoftwareisusedontheservers,whereasalargershareofspeciallydevelopedsoftwareisusedonthedesktopmachines.

VI The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Besidestheabovementionedinformationontheuseofsoftware,therespondentshavebeenaskedabouttheiruseofsoftwareingeneral.Withthisismeantwhichcompositionofsoftwaretypestheyusewithinthecompany,onanoveralllevel.

General use of software types Number PercentageSoftware owned by suppliers, only �8� ��.�%Software mainly owned by suppliers and some open source programs 277 ��.�%Even distribution between open source and software owned by suppliers �8 �.2%Mainly open source software and some programs owned by suppliers �� .�%Open source software, only 2� �.�%

Thetableshowsthatdespitetheindicationinpreviousillustrationsofsoliddominanceofsoftwareownedbysuppliers,opensourcesoftwareisusedtoagreaterorlesserextentinapproximatelyhalfoftherespondentcompanies.Atthesametime,itisonlyapproximatelyhalfoftherespondentcompaniesthatdon’tuseopensourcesoftwareatall.ThismeansthattheuseofopensourcesoftwaredoesexistinDenmarkeventhoughitmustbeassumedthatmostoftheproductshavebeeninstalledoncomputersthatuseMicrosoftWindows.

Decision parameters Inrelationtothecompanies’choiceofsoftware,itisinterestingtoexaminewhichparametersthatformthebasisofthedecision.Inanumberofquestionsinthequestionnaire,thecompaniesareaskedaboutthedegreeofinfluenceofdifferentparameters.Thedifferentparametersaredividedinanumberofgeneralquestionsandinthecategories”operationalreliability”,”flexibility”,”security”,”support”and”strategy”.Withineachcategory,anumberofquestionsareaskedthatcanallbeansweredonascalewiththeoptions”none”,”low”,”some”,”high”or”veryhigh”influence.

Thetotalreplymatrixlookslikethis:


No influence

Low influence

Some influence

High influence

Very high influence

No % No % No % No % No %GeneralPurchase price �� .� �0� ��.� �77 �8.� 20� 2�.8 �� .�Running costs �7 �.7 �� 8.2 �08 ��.� 278 ��.7 �� 8.�Development costs �0� ��.� �2� ��.� 2�� 2.� 202 2�.� �0 �.�Licence expenses �7 �.7 �0� ��.� �� .8 �� 2�.� �2 8.0Expenses for administration of licences �7 �2.� 2�� 27.� 27� ��.0 �2� ��.� �2 �.�Operational reliabilityUptime and stability �� 2.� �2 �.� 80 �0.� �� 2.7 �� 0.�Fast error recovery 2� �.� �� .� ��0 �8.0 �� .7 �87 2�.0Few code errors in the software �0 �.� �� .� �7� 22.2 �� .0 �� 20.7FlexibilityPossibility of adjustment to and integration with companies’ former systems �� .� �� 7.2 207 2�.� �0� ��0 ��0 �8.0

Possibility of further development of the software in relation to companies’ future demands �8 7.� �� 2.7 2�� 27.7 2�� .� �� .�

Problem free exchange of documents and data with extern partners �� .0 8� �0.8 �78 22.8 �02 �8.8 �� 2�.�

Independency of suppliers 77 �.� 2�� 27.� 2�7 ��.� �� .� �2 �.�SecurityData security, eg. at breakdown �� 2.� �� .� �0� ��.0 �� .� 2�� .�Resistance to virus/worms �� 2.� �� .� �� 8.� �� 0.� 2�� .�Resistance in relation to hackers, attack etc. �7 2.2 �� .� �� 20.0 282 ��.2 2�8 ��.�Possibilities of encryption and complying with security standards �2 �.� �0� ��.� 220 28.2 2�0 �0.8 �� 8.�

SupportPossibility of support from supplier 20 2.� �� 7.2 20� 2�.� �2� ��.8 ��0 ��.�Possibility of support from other companies than the supplier �� .0 �2� ��.� 2�� .0 2�� .� 7� �.�

Immediate use of internal support resources �7 �.7 �0 ��.� 277 ��.� 2�� .� 8� �0.7Immediate availability to employees (No training necessary) 2� 2.7 72 �.2 2�8 ��.8 �0� ��.2 �0� ��.0

StrategyThe software is continuously developed further �� 2.� �� 7.� 2�� .� �2� ��.� �� .8The software supplier is an established company with a good reputation 2� �.� �� 8.� 2�� 27.� �� .� �� .�

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration VII

Thetableaboveshowsanumberofdifferentresponsesofdecisionparametersofthecompaniesthathaveparticipatedinthestudy.Nodistinctionhasbeenmadebetweencompaniesonthebasisofsizeorlineofbusiness,butinsteadonthetotalpicture.Thetableassistsingivinganoverviewofthefactorsthatareimportanttothecompaniesinrelationtothechoiceofsoftware.Thesinglecategorieswillbecoveredshortlybelow.Thegivenpercentagesaregiveninpropor-tiontothetotalnumberofrespondents.

General decision parametersThegeneraldecisionparameterscovermorefactorsthat,inmanycases,aredirectlyavailableintheformofpurchase,workinganddevelopmentexpenses.Thegeneralpictureofthecompany’sevaluationoftheseparametersare,thatthedeclarationsreachtheirsummitat”someinfluence”.

Distribution of preferences for general decision factors


Thedistributionisshownintheillustrationabove.Thedistributionofanswersisclear.Fromthecompanies’statements,onthebasisofthestudy’sresult,itisconcludedthatdirectexpensesforpurchase,operationsanddevelopmentarenottheprimarydecisionparametersforthecompanies’choiceofsoftware.

Thecompaniesthatchoosetoevaluatetheparametersinthegeneralgroupasbeingofveryhighinfluencearegener-allyverysmallcompaniesof10employeesorless.6)Thereisanindicationthatthesecompaniesaremoredirectly

dependantonthesizeofimmediatecostsandforthatreason,choosetoevaluatetheirchoiceofsoftwareonthisbasis.

Operational reliabilityThecategoryofdecisionparametersconcerningoperationalreliabilityconcernsthecompany’sdependenceontheirITsystemsandtheirrequirementthatthesystemsareavailableatanytime.Theseparametersmaybemoreimportanttoa

companythatgetsitsincomeonthebasisofservicesbasedontheuseofIT,thantoacompanythatonlysporadicallyusesIT.

Distribution of preferences concerning for decision factors concerning operational reliability

�) Own calculatinos on the basis of the study’s results. Source: Own calculations

VIII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Astheabovedistributionshows,thethreegivenfactorsarefactorswhichthecompaniesassesstobeofhighinfluenceontheirchoiceoftechnology.Particularlythefactor“longoperationaltimeandstability”showsaveryhighpreferenceasatotalof83%ofrespondentsstate,thatlongoperationaltimeandstabilityhasahighorveryhighinfluenceontheirchoiceoftechnology.FlexibilityToacompanyitcanbenecessarytoadjusttheIT-systemstothespecificapplicationsthatthecompanieshave.Further-more,formanycompaniesitisimportanttobeabletocommunicateelectronicallywithcustomersandcollaborators.

Distribution of preferences for decision parameters in relation to flexibility


Theillustrationshowsthedistributionofresponsesonfourdifferentparametersfortheflexibilityofthesoftware.Thecom-panieshaveansweredonthebasisofhowimportanttheystatethefourfactorstobe,inrelationtotheirchoiceofsoftware.

Incomparisontothetwopreviousillustrations,thisdistributionismore“flat”.Thismeansthattheanswersaremoreevenlydistributedonthe5choices.Thethreeparametersgivenwithdarkblue,purpleandyellowcolourrespectivelyfolloweachothergraduallywithapproximately35-40percentoftherespondentsstating,thattheybelievethatthethreefactorshaveahighinfluenceontheirchoiceofsoftware.

Theillustrationshowsthatthecurvefor”Independencyofsuppliers”isdifferentfromtheotherthreecurves.Thiscurveisinterestingbecauseitshowshowhighlytheyweightthepossibilityofavoidinglock-in,andthepossibilityofbeinginde-pendentofsinglesuppliers.Thecompaniesmainlyassessthisfactortobeoflowerinfluenceontheirchoiceofsoftwarethantheotherfactorsinthiscategory.19.6percentbelievesthatindependencyisofhighinfluenceandonly5.4percentbelievesthatindependencyisofveryhighinfluenceontheirchoice.Atotalof37percentofrespondentsbelievesthattheindependencyofsuppliersisoflowornoinfluenceonchoiceofsoftware.Forthatreasonthisfactorisnotassessedbythecompanies,tobeofhighimportancetothechoiceofsoftware.

SecurityAsinternethasbecomewidespreadandmostcomputersareconnected,attentionandmeasurestoavoidbreak-insandabuseofthesystemshavebeenintensified,andsecurityisnowanimportantargumentforthepurposeofsellingandadvertising.

Astheillustrationbelowshows,securityisalsoaparameterwhichthecompaniesinthequestionnairestudyassessasimportantinrelationtotheirchoiceofsoftware.Datasecurityandresistancetoviraandattackarethethreefactorsstatedbythecompaniestobeofhighestinfluenceontheirchoiceofsoftware.Forthethreefactorsitisseenthatanaverageofap-proximately73percentofthecompaniesstate,thatthefactorsareofhighorveryhighinfluenceontheirchoiceofsoftware.Itisalsoseenthatapproximately45percentofthecompaniesstate,thatthesecurityofthesoftwareagainstlossofdatainconnectiontobreakdownisofhighinfluence.Forthatreason,thisfactorisofparticularimportancetothecompanies.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration IX

Distribution of preferences for decision factors concerning security

Thedecisionfactorconcerning”encryptionandcompliancetosecuritystandards”hasnotbeenassessedtobeofsameinfluenceontheirchoiceofsoftwareasthethreeotherfactors.Thehigheststatementistheapproximately30percentofthecompanieswhichhavestated“highinfluence”.Forthatreasonsecurity,intheformofencryptionandsecureinternalandexternalcommunication,isnotasbigafocuspointastheotherstatedfactors.SupportAsoftwareproductdoes,inmostcases,notonlycompriseofapieceofsoftwareonaCDROMorsomethingthatisdown-loadedfromtheinternet.Whenpurchasingsoftwarethereisusuallyaneedtoestablishasupportagreementtoensurehelpsoonafteranyproblemsthatmayarisewiththesoftwareortrainingofthecompany’semployees.Forthatreason,supportisanotherfactorforthecompaniestotakeintoaccountwhentheychoosewhichsoftwaretopurchase.Astheillustrationbelowshows,thefactorsinthesupportcategoryaresomethingwhichthecompaniesmainlyweightasbeingof“some”to“high”influence.Thepossibilityofgettingsupportdirectlyfromthesupplierofthesoftwareisespeciallyimportant,sincealittlemorethan60percentofthecompaniesstatethatthisisofhighorveryhighinfluenceonchoiceofsoftware.Thecom-panies’possibilityofgettingsupportfromothercompaniesthanthesupplierisnotsoimportant.Morethan20percentofthecompaniesstatethatexternsupportisofno,orlow,influence.

Distribution of preferences for decision factors concerning support


StrategyThiscategoryoffactorsincludesjusttwodifferentfactorswhich,summedup,iscalled“strategy”.Thisisconnectedtothefactthatcompanieshavetosecurethemselvesinrelationtotheinvestmentstheymake.Ifacompanychoosestoinvestinasoftwareproduct,itisnecessarytomakesurethatthesoftwarewon’tbehopelesslyoutofdatewithinshorttime,andthatthesoftwarecomesfromafirmorconsortiumthatwillkeepsupportingthesoftware,andinthatwaystimulatethefurthersupportanddevelopmentoftheproduct.

Astheillustrationshows,thestrategyfactorsareimportantbutarenotoftoppriority.Between40and45percentofthecompaniesstate,thatthetwodecisionparametersareofhighinfluenceontheirchoiceofsoftware.

Thetwocurvesaccompanyeachothernicelyconcerningtheinfluencecategories,anditisworthnotingtheconsiderablefallfrom40-45percentwith”highinfluence”toonlyapproximately15percentwith”veryhighinfluence”.Thismeansthatthecompaniesinthestudyweightthestrategicparametershighlybutitcan’tchangetheirdecisiononchoiceofsoftware.


X The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Distribution of preferences for decision factors concerning strategy


Generally about the resultsThenumerousillustrationsshownaboveillustratehowthecompaniesinDenmarkassesstheirchoiceofsoftware.Generallyabouttheillustrationsitcanbesaidthatallthegivenfactorshaveabiasagainsthighandveryhighinfluence.Thissupportsanunderstandingthatacompany’schoiceofsoftwareisbasedonahighnumberofevaluationsaboutthequalitiesandpossibilitiesofthesoftware.

Thecompaniesingeneralwantasoftwareproductfromareliablesupplierthatdevelopstheprogramfurther.Thesoftwarehastobereliableasregardsoperationsandoperationaltimeandtherehastobegoodpossibilitiesofsupport,preferablyfromthesupplier.Itis,fromtheviewpointofthecompany,oflessimportancethatthesoftwareimpliesthatthecompanybecomesdependentonproductsfromasinglesupplierinsteadofhavingthepossibilityofchoosingbetweenseveral.

Besidesthefunctionalandstrategicevaluationsofsoftware,Danishcompaniesalsomakeevaluationsofsoftwareonotherlevels.Thiscouldbeinfluencefromothercompanies,friends,familyandmanyotherthings.Thesefactorsarecoveredinthenextsection.

The decision-making processDecision-makersinDanishcompaniesarepeoplethathavetomakedecisionsthatcouldhaveaconsiderableeffectontheeconomyandsurvivalofthecompany.Aninvestmentinsoftwareandthetechnologybelongingtoit,hastobemadeonthebasisofthequalitiesandattributesofthesoftware.Theproblemishowthesequalitiesareevaluated.

Therearemanydifferentfactorsthathaveaninfluenceonthechoiceofsoftware.Thecompanieshave,inthediagrambelow,statedtowhatextenttheirdecisionisbasedondifferentfactors.

Statements of influence on the decision-making process

Not at all To a low degree

To some degree

To a high degree

To a very high degree

No % No % No % No % No %Thorough and systematic studies of pros and cons of every single alternative before the decision is made

�7 �.0 �� 2�.2 ��8 �0.8 �� 2�.8 �0 �.�

The company’s prearranged principles for the IT-architecture �2 �.� ��8 ��.� 2�� 2.� 28� ��.7 �� 7.8

Immediate impressions of, and others’ experience with similar products 22 2.8 88 ��.� �0� ��.0 �0� ��.2 �� .2

Testing of the software on a small scale and subsequent evaluation �� 8.� ��2 2�.� 27� ��.8 �8� 2�.� �� .�


The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XI

Thetableaboveshowstherespondentsstatementsofwhichmeasurescompaniestake,inordertosupporttheirdecision-makingprocess.Inthesamewayasinprevioussections,Ihaveplottedtheanswersinanillustrationwhichisshownbelow.

Influence on the decision-making process

Theillustrationshowstowhatextentthedecision-makersareinfluencedbydifferentfactorsinrelationtotheirdecision-makingprocessconcerningchoiceofsoftware.Therespondentsinthequestionnairestudyhavebeenaskedtoevaluate4differentevaluationscenarios,andinrelationtothesestatetowhatdegreetheyfittotheirdecision-makingprocess.

Astheillustrationshows,thefactorsthatstandoutinrelationtoinfluencearethefactorsconcerningthecompany’sestab-lishedIT-architectureandtheimmediatesenseofthedecision-maker–andothers’experienceswiththesamesoftware.Itisalsosurprisingthattestingofsoftwarewithinthecompanydoesnotaffectthedecision-makertoashighadegreeasownfeelingandothers’experience.

Consequently,itcanbestated,thatifyouwanttosellasoftwareproducttoDanishcompaniesyoushouldn’tbaseyourlaunchingandcampaignbytryingtoconvincethedecision-makerstheproductisworthputtingmoneyon,insteadoffocusingonfunctionalitiesandcontributetoproducttests.Agoodnetworkofpeopletorecommendthesoftwareisanimportanttoolforasoftwareproducertopromotetheirproducts.

Pros and consMostdecision-makersinDanishcompanieshave,alreadybeforethehavetoevaluatethesoftware,anopinionabouttherelationbetweenopensourceandproprietarysoftware.Anumberofquestionsinthestudyareaimedatidentifyingtheseopinions.Forthetwodevelopmentmodelsacomparisonhavebeencarriedouttodiscovertheprosandconsofeachofthemodels,asitisviewedbythedecision-makers.

Thequestionsinthissectionhavebeenaskedinsuchawaythattherespondentshavehadthepossibilityofmarkingtheiropinionasbothopensourceandproprietarysoftwareindependentlyofeachother.


Advantages of different development models


XII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Theparameterswhichtherespondentshavegivenasadvantagesareshownintheillustrationabove.Anoutlineofthedisadvantagesofthedifferenttypesofsoftwareisseenintheillustrationbelow.

Intheillustrationaboveitseenthattherearesubstantialdifferencesbetweentheperceptionsofthetwosoftwaremodels.Therearenofactorswherethedevelopmentmodelshavenearthesameresponsefrequency.Thishastomeanthatthedecision-makersinDanishcompaniesoftenhavepreferencesforeitheroneortheotherdevelopmentmodel.

Theresultsintheillustrationdivideintwogroups:Onewheretheopensourcesoftwareisevaluatedtohavethelargestshareofadvantagesandonewheretheproprietarysoftwareappearsmostfavourabletotherespondentsinthestudy.Theadvantageswhichtherespondentshavemainlyevaluatedtobemostfortheopensourcesoftwarearethetwofurthesttotheleftintheillustrationabove.Theseare”lowertotalcost”and”higherflexibility”.Thismeansthattheimmediateperceptionisthatopensourcesoftwareleadstosavingsandbetterpossibilitiesofintegration.Ontheotherhand,opensourcesoftwarescoresverylowintheremainingcategoriesintheillustration.Thesefactorsconcerntheaccesstosupport,documentationandqualifiedstaffandalsothereputationoftheproducerandthegeneralqualityofthesoftware.There-spondentsinthestudyhavestatedthatopensourcesoftwareisaconsiderableproblem,comparedtoproprietarysoftwareregardingsupportanddocumentation–Somethingthecompaniesfindveryimportant.Consequently,hereisachallengefortheopensourceworldifitwantstowinfurthermarketsharesinthefuture.

Wheretheopensourcesoftwarehasmoreadvantagescomparedtoproprietarysoftware,isinrelationtopricingandflex-ibility.Ihavepreviouslyshownthatflexibilityisanimportantpointforthecompaniesinthestudy,butregardingpricingthisisreallyjustaminoradvantagesincepricingisn’tofrelativelyveryhighimportancetothecompany.

Disadvantages of different development models


Ifyoulookatthestatementofdisadvantages,apictureemergesthattheDanishcompanieshaveaclearimpressionofhowthetwodevelopmentmodelsaredifferenttoeachother.Infiveoutofsixcategoriesthereisbroadagreementwhetheritisopensourceorproprietarysoftwarethathasthebiggestdisadvantages.Inthecategory”Lackinguser-friendliness”thereismoresimilaritybetweenthedevelopmentmodels,however,withtheevaluationthatopensourcelagbehindproprietarysoftwareasregardsuser-friendliness.

Proprietarysoftwarehasbeenassessedtohavethemostdisadvantagesinrelationtoadministrationoflicences,lock-inandpricestructure,bytheDanishcompanies.Thesefactorsarepartlythosethatcanalsobeseeninthepreviousillustrationwhereopensourceisseentohavethemostadvantages–inthecategoriesconcerningcostsandflexibilityprecisely.

Thecategorieswhereproprietarysoftwareisevaluatedtohavefewerdisadvantagesthanopensourcearegenerallythecategorieswheresimplicityandaccessibilityappear.Thecompaniesassessopensourcesoftwaretobedifficulttouseanddifficulttoassessthequalityof.Thesearefactorsthatcancontributetoproprietarysoftwarekeepingitswideprevalencedespitethelicencestructureforopensourcesoftwarebeingeasiertomanage,andthatthesoftwareingeneralismoreaffordable.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XIII

Summary of the study

TheabovecoversthemostimportantresultsintheDanishstudyonthebasisofrecievedanswers.

Theresultsarecalculatedonthebasisof779answersofaquestionnaireontheinternet.ThemostimportantresultsgiveanindicationofthebigpredominanceofproprietarysoftwarewiththeDanishcompaniesthatuseITandIT-services.EspeciallytheproprietaryproductsfromMicrosofthavemanyusers.

Inthecustomerstudytheincentivesandargumentsofthecompanieswhenchoosingsoftwarehavealsobeenexamined.

Finally,thedecision-makersintheDanishcompanieshavebeenaskedabouttheirimmediateperceptionsofprosandconsinrelationtothetwodevelopmentmodels;opensourceandproprietarysoftware.Theimpactontothemarketplaceforopensourcesoftwarewillbedescribedinthefollowing.

Collaboration among the suppliers and consumers – Supplier-driven sites.Inthemarketanalysisanumberofinterestingfactorswereuncoveret.ThesemustbetakenintoconsiderationwithregardstotheinstigationoftheNordicnetwork.Itappearsthatthereareanumberofobstaclesthatcausespublicandprivatecom-panieschoiceofsoftwarenottobemadeonfairterms,becausetheinformationthathavetobepresentinordertomakeanobjectivechoicearenotpresentinthemarketoftoday.

Throughresultsfromthesurveyithasbecomeclearthatbothdecision-makersinthecompaniesandtheadvisersneedadvisingandguidanceintheformofinformationanddecisiontools,whendecisionsaboutchoiceofsoftwareneedtobemade.Animportantresultfromthestudyismoreover,thattheinformationthatcustomersandsupplierswant,mustincludepossibilitiesofassessingprosandconsofthesoftwarementioned.Furthermore,servicestoassessthequalityofsoftware,iswanted,sincethisisoneofthepointswhichrespondentsstatedtohavedifficultiesinfinding.

Besidesaneedforinformationalservices,softwareusersalsowishforguidanceandconcretecontactstocompaniesthatcanhelpthemmakedecisions,implementsolutionsorsupporttheirexistinginstallation.Theconsumerswanttobesurethatacompanycanbefoundthatisreadytotakeontheroleandobligationitistosupportaproduct.Manyrespondentshavestatedthatthereasontheychooseproprietarysoftwareorsoftwareownedbysuppliersis,thattheywanttobeabletoapproachanattachedcontactforsupportandadvising–Asituationthatisonlyseldomseenonthemarketforopensourcesoftware.

Generallymatchingbetweenconsumerandproductandalsobetweenconsumerandsupplier,isanareaforwhichtherewillbegreatdemand.60%oftherespondentsinthecustomerstudyhaveansweredthatopensourcesoftwarewillbepartoftheirconsiderationsinrelationtofutureinvestmentsinsoftware.Fromtheonesthatansweredthattheywon’tincludeopensourcesoftwareinfutureinvestments,approximatelyhalfansweredthattheywouldneverthelessconsideropensource,iftherewerecertaintyaboutqualifiedsupportofthechosensolution.

Consequently,thissurveyhascontributedtotheknowledgebaseonthemarketforopensourcesoftware.Wenowknowalotmoreaboutthebackgroundforthechoiceofsoftwareandwhichinfluencesdecision-makersareexposedto.

Byusingthisknowledgewehavethepossibilitytoadjusttheservicesandinformationatdisposal,onthefutureportalsinthecountriesbehindthisproject.

Asthispapermentionedintheintroduction,thereisaneedforalivingmarketplacethatcanprovidetheservicesandgivetheinformationthatbothsuppliersandconsumersneed.Theviabilityofthemarketplacecanbemaintainedifthesuppliersandconsumersareinterdependentinordertogainfromtheirparticipation.Inthismanner,therewillbeasustainedactivitytowardsthemediumthatthemarketplaceconsistsof,whateverimaybe;portal,exchangeetc.

The Danish Software Exchange.Inordertoachievethegoalsthatanopensourceinitiativeisaimingfor,theSoftwareExchange,thattheDanishMinistryforScienceandTechnology,hasbeencreatedusingtherecommendationsfromthesurvey.

Theportalsoftwareboersen.dkhoststheSoftwareExchangewhichisahubforsoftware-sharingamongpublicbodiesinDenmarkaswellasameetingplaceforcustomersandsuppliersofopensourceservices.

Better SoftwareIn2006theNationalITandTelecomAgencyinDenmark,adepartmentundertheMinistryofScienceandTechnology,gaveoutthetasktodevelopacommunityofpublicIT-managersforexchangingsoftwareandexperiences.Asecondarypurposewastoprovidecontactbetweensoftware-providersandexistingandpotentialusersofopensourcesoftware.

XIV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Theportalprovidesasynergyeffectforsuppliersandusersthroughtheinclusivecommunityitserves.Theexchangeofex-periences,knowledgeandkompetencesprovidesafoundationforfurtherdevelopmentandimprovementsofthesolutionsalreadyinuseingovernmentorganisations.

Thusthepublicorganisationscanachievemore”valueformoney”whichagaincreatesabetterincentiveforinvestmentinsolutionsbasedonopensourcesoftware.Theopennessandapproachabilityknownfromtheworldofopensourcebo-comesageneralterminthemarket.

Breaking barriersTotargettheuncertaintyonthequalityofopensourcesoftwaresolutions,whichisasignificantbarriertopublicbodies’se-lectionhereof,theSoftwareExchangetriestoeradicatethisuncertainty,whichislargelybasedontheabsenceofunbiasedinformation.

TheSoftwareboersen-portalgivesthedecisionmakersofpublicDenmarkthebasisfortheirevaluationofthedifferentpos-sibilitiesinthesoftwaremarket,throughtheinteractionofsuppliersandusers.

Custom applications creates interactionThecreationoftheSoftwareExchangemadeitpossibleforuserstoapproachthesitedependingoftheirexpectations.Userscanengageincontactwiththeindividualsorbusinesseswhohasthecompetenciesorexperiencesdemanded.TheSoftwareExchangecreatesalevelfieldforallactorsinthesoftwaremarketandtherebyfacilitatesthedecisionprocessforallpublicsectorIT-managers.

Theportalencouragesopenandinteractivecommunicationamongstthedifferentusertypes.Allusers,approvedbythewebmaster,caneditthesitesiteandupdatetheirowninformation.Thesiteoffersanarrayofdifferentmodulesorservicesavailabletotheuseraccordingtotheirindividualneeds.Atthesametime,thesemodulescollectsrelevantinformationanddistributesthisthroughoutthesite.Inthiswaysuppliers,developersandpublicinstitutionsareconnectedwitheachotherthroughtheSoftwareExchange.

OneofthetechnicalchallengesinthedevelopmentoftheSoftwareExchangewastohavethemanymodulesofthecon-tentmanagementsystemPlone,workingtogethertogiveusersanexperienceofanintegratedsystemwithintheframe-workofthesite.Theresultwasanadvancedwebsitethatprovidesknowledge,informationandinteractioninaneasytouseformat.

A design frameworkTheSoftwareExchangehasbeendevelopedsothattheoveralldesignandvisualidentityaswellasthestructureofinforma-tionissubjectedtoawishofmaximumusability.

Thisiseasilyseeninthechoiceofasimpleandinvitingdesign,easy-to-readtypographyandalownumberofoptionsonthecentralpagesofthesite.Theuseofcoloursarechosentosupportthefunctionalityofthesite.Easyrecognitionofthecoloursenhancestheuserfriendlinesswithregardstoidentificationofnavigationandoptions.

Conclusion

ThispaperhaspresentedaproposalforabusinessmodelforprovisionofopensourcesoftwareonaNordicscale.

TheproposalisbasedonextensiveresearchontheDanishmarketforsoftware.TheassumptionshavealsobeentestedthroughthedevelopmentanduseoftheDanishSoftwareExchange.Themainresultsfromtheseeffortsarethatawellfunctioningmarketforopensourcesoftwaremustgiveusersanincentivetokeepcomingbacktothemarketplaceandthatthelinkbetweenusersandsuppliersisveryimportanttonurtureandstimulate.Thiswaythemarketplacewillgener-ateincreasedconfidenceinopensourcesoftwareandtheestablishmentofopensourcesoftwareasarealalternativetothecommonsoftwareinuseinthemajorityofthemarketatpresent.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XV

APPENDIX 3:Study on the use of Open Source Software in the Norwegian Software Industry, Conclusions

InNorwaytheNorwegiangouvernementencouragestheuseofOpensource(boththroughtheSoriaMoria-declarationandbytheestablishingofTheNorwegianNationalInnovationCenterforOpenSource).ButeventhoughopensourcehasrecievedalotofattentioninNorwayaselsewhere,littlewasknownabouttheactualproliferationofopensourcesoftwareinNorway.

AsaresultareportontheuseofopensourcesoftwareintheNorwegiansoftwareindustrywaspublishedin2008.Thereportisbaseduponasurveycarriedoutinthefall2007bytheDepartementofComputerandInformationSciencesattheNorwegianUniversityofandScienceandTechnology(NTNU)1).

ThetwomostimportantconcernsintheNorwegianreportweretheextensionoftheuseofopensourcesoftwareinNorway,andsecondly,thereasonsforadoptingorusingopensource.

Firstly,theauthorsfoundthatnearlythehalfofthenorwegiansoftwareenterprisesinquestionuseopensourcesoftwarecomponentsintheirdeveloping,andastheystressedthisisbyallmeansaconsiderableamount.Opensourcesoftwareisbeingusedinbothsmallandlargerproductswithabroadareaoffunctionalities.Theseproductsisbeingdeliveredtocustomerswithineverybusinesssector.

Thestudyalsoindicatedamorefrequentuseofopensourcewithinsoftwareconsultanciesthanenterprisespurelydirectedtowardssoftwaredevelopment.Theauthorsseethisasanaturalconsequenseoftwopossibleexplanations,theonebeingthatthesoftwaresuppliersoftenlivesellingofproductsandbylicencing,whereasconsultancycompaniestoalargerextendprovideservicesconnectedtothedevelopmentofapplications.Secondlythesuppliersaretypicallydirectedtowardsahomogeneousmarkets,focussingonlyononeorfewproducts-consultancies,ontheotherhand,participateinthedevelopementofalongrangeofsolutionsforavariedgroupofcustomers.

Theuseofopensourceissomewhatmorefrequentwithinlargercompaniesthaninsmallerones,whichtheauthorsrelatetothefactthatlargercompaniesoftenhaveawholerangeofproductstherebytakingonabroaderspectrumofassign-ments.Inadditiontothethis,largerenterprisessimplyhavemoreemployedpersonel,therebyenhancingthepossiblityofsomebodyhavingpriorexperiencewithopensource.

AsforthesecondmainfocusoftheNorwegianreport(i.e.thereasonsforchoosingopensourcesoftwarecomponentsinsoftwaredevelopment),theauthorsfoundthatopensourceisusedmainlybecauseitgivesaccesstocomponentsofahighstandardfunctionality,whocontributestohightenthequalityofanendproductmostoftenbybeingtestedbyarelativelylargenumberofusers(whoordinarilygivefrequenterrorreportingfeedback).Furthermoretheabsenceoflicencecoststogetherwithareducedworkamountcontributestoareductionofdevelopmentcosts.Somewhatsurprisinglythemarketdemandforopensourceandamongcustomers,ontheotherhand,haslittleornoeffectupontheuseofopensource.Theauthorspointtothelackofknowledgeanddifficultiesassesingthequalitiesofopensourceproductsaspossibleexplana-tionsforthis2).

Thedecisionandselectionofopensourceproductsismoreoftenthannotinfomallychosen,andcomponentswithaposi-tivehistoryareoftenusedoverandoveragain.Newcomponentsareoftenfoundthroughinformalrecommendationsorviasearchenginesandportalsprovidingopensourcesoftware.AccordingtotheNorwegianstudycontributionstotheopensourcecommunityfromtheNorwegiansoftwareindustrywererelativelymoderate,duetoitsbeingdrivenmainlybyindividualefforts-andonlysecondlybyenterprises(althoughsomeenterprisesdowatchtheopensourcesoftwareworldcloselyinordernottoloosesightofpossiblenewcomponents).

Componentswhicharetrustedandtestedareoftenintegratedwithoutfurtherevaluation–whennewcomponentsareactuallyevaluatedthistakesplacewithregardtothereputationandactivityofthecomponentwithinitsrespectiveecosys-tem(oftenhereafteraprototypeortestinstallationisdevelopedinordertoprovefunctionality).However,intheevaluation

�) http://research.idi.ntnu.no/oss/NTNU_friprog.pdf The study was carried out in 2007 and is based upon a screening proces with answers from more than 700 Norwegian enterprises, a survey containing answers from �� firms and interviews with system developers from �� Norwegian enterprises.

2) The authors point to another Norwegian study (also mapping the use of open source software in Norway), by the Norwegion National Innovation Center for Open Source, the NUUG foundation, IBM and LinproThe study is as of yet unpublished, but the main conclusions are available in overview at http://linmag.no/article/articleview/��2/�/�7/

XVI The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

processcomponentpropertiesaremoreessentialthantheecosystemprovidingit:Thecomponentmustoffernescessaryandstableareasoffunctionality,itslicencemustbeinharmonywiththeintendeduseandithastobeeasilyapplicablebythedevelopers.Thisentailshighstandarddeveloperdocumentation,flexibility,knowntechnologyandsimpleintegrationwithothercomponentsorsystems.Ingeneraleasingtheworkburdenofadeveloperandthesimplificationofhisworkisoftheessencehere.

Thedeveloperswhoansweredthequetionnairehadtoalittleornodifficultiesfinding,assessingandusingopensourcesoftwarecomponents.Inadditiontothissoftwaredevelopersclaimthatopensourcesoftwarereducestheoveralllifetimecostoftheirproducts.

Perspectives for a Joint Nordic Hub for Open Source Software

TheNorwegianstudyisnotimmediatelycomparabletoresultsoftheDanishstudyandforamorethouroughcomparisonbetweenthetwostudiesaconsiderationofthedifferencesbetweenthetwocountries(juridicial,institutional,waysofdo-ingbusinessetc.)aswellasthemethodologybehindthetwostudies(e.g.differencesinscope,terminologyetc.)wouldbeneeded.

Butregardlessofanypossiblediscrepanciesbetweenthetworeports,theNorwegianreportseemstobepointinginthesamegeneraldirectionastheDanishsurvey.TheconclusionsoftheNorwegianstudyseem,atleastinaverygeneralfash-ion,tobeinaccordancewiththeresultoftheDanishsurvey,regardingthedecisionmakingprocessandtheparametersforchosingopensourcesolutions:Opensourcesolutionsisprimarilychosenduetoquestionsofreliabilityandstability,economyandflexibility.

IntryingtosumuptheconclusionsoftheNorwegianstudyandpintheirrelevancetoajointNordichubforopensourcesoftware,severalpointsofrelevancecanbemade.

Firstofall,thefactthatdevelopershavelittleornodifficultyfinding,assessingandusingrelevantopensourcecomponentsmaybetheleastsurprisingofthereportsconclusions–itmustbeassumedthatknowledgeregardingopensourcewithinthisgroupisatitslargest,thattheprosandconsofopensourcesoftwarebewellknownandmaybealsothatitiswithinthisgroupthatopensourcesoftwareposesthemostimmediatebenefits.Inthecontextofthispapertheimportantquestionmustbehowtogetpastthislevelandexpandtheknowledgeanduseofopensourcesoftwaretoafurtheraudience.

Secondly,whenlookinguponthewholedecisionmakingprocessitisstrikinglyinformal,individuallydrivenandbaseduponexcistingnetworksandecosystems.Thelargerthenetworksthelargerthepossibilityoffindingindividualswiththenescessaryknowledgeofopensourcesoftware.Initiallysoftwareisoftenchosenonthebasisofreputationandtheassess-mentofathirdpartyoutsider,andonlysecondlyupontestinstallationsorthoroughinvestigationsofonesown.However,onceadopted,evaluationandassesmentofcomponentqualityisbaseduponsoftwarepropertiesratherthantheecosys-tem.

Thirdly,andmaybemoreimportantly,customerdemanddoesnotseemtoprovideandincentivefortheproliferationandexpansionoftheuseopensourcesoftware.Thisagain,seemstoemphasizetheneedforasupplier-drivenforumforfurther-ingthecollaborationbetweensuppliersandconsumersasdescribedandsuggestedabove.

Viewedinconnectionwiththefactthatopensourceisoftenchoseninformally,thatthedecisionmakingprocesisoftenindividualdrivenandbasedlooselyuponnetworksandecosystemsmakesthisprocessratherfragile.Anditpointstotheneedforaframeworkthatdoesnotevaporate,whenindividualswiththepropperknowledgeandtheaccidentalnetworkarenolongertheretodriveforwardtheuseofopensourcesoftware.Atransindividualframeprovidingthenescessarycontinuitywithoutloosingthebeneficialaspectsofaninformaldecision-makingprocess-thatis,creatingacertaininterde-pendencybetweensuppliersandcustomerswithoutforeverlockingthetwotogetherinanunbreakablebond.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XVII

APPENDIX 4:Survey

Q1 q2Businessmodels q3Ownwordsbusinessmodels q4Ownwordsecosystemq5Joinecosystem Contact

Q1 OSLtestMediamaisteri OpinsysNomovok WasalabCubicalSolutionsOy Tietoteema Quosis CCSystems Magenta CasalogicA/S AngeOptimization Fab:IT SymfoniSoftware Code3 headneteZSystems Oracle Gaiaware TrolltechASA LinPro NexusConsulting RedpillAB CuraliaAB imCodePartnerAB RedBridgeAB CendioAB ResightAS

Business models OpenSourceandService 20 71.4% Mixed 9 32.1% OpenSourceandBuyOff 3 10.7% OpenSourceandAggrevation 10 35.7% OpenSourceandhardware 8 28.6% Total 28 178.6%

XVIII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Own words business models MainlyMoodlehoustingwhichisthenconnectedtotrainingandconsulting. Widerangeofservicesandconsultingfortheschoolsector,comparetobuilding/constructionconsult,processdevelop-mentwithtechnicalsolutions(computers,infrastructure,LTSP’s) IntegratingOS-components intergratingandfixingOScomponentstogether,thenofferinghostingandserviceforthatentity,alsodevelopmentworkforcertainOS-components IntegratingOS-components,developingclosecomponentsworkingwithopensourcecomponents,trainingservicesHosting and consulting services, integration and development of open source components MainbusinessistoofferAlfrescosolutionsasaAlfrescopartner,servicesrelatedtothat;consulting,hosting,training,configuration.AlsoOSintergrationandLiferayservices. Opencomponentsasapartoftheirownproducts,embeddedLinuxsolutions, Wesellsupportandservices-botharoundourownsoftwareandotheropensourcesoftware. Consultingcompanyearningmoneyfrominstallation,support,maintenanceandeducationaroundITinfrastructurebasedonOpenSource

Wedevelopsoftwareforclientsthattheywouldhavedevelopedinternallyhadtheyhadaninternalsoftwaredevelopingorganization.Theclientsdonotcareifthesoftwareisfreesoftwareornot. WeprimarilysellsystemmanagementtocustomersrunningOpenSourcesoftwarelikeLAMP,Samba,firewallsandotherpopularstuff.Wegrabthesoftware,installitonourorthecustomersserver,configurethesoftwaretothespecificationsrequiredbythecustomerandthesolutionisthenreadyforproduction.Weofferadditionalserviceslikebackup,surveilanceandreportingandadvancedsecuritybasedonOSS. Weprovidecustomerswithproprietarysoftwareandservices.Oursolutionsdoessupportopenstandardsandinteroper-abilitywithopensourcesoftwareaswellasproprietarysoftware. Weuseopensourcesoftware/librarieswhendevelopingcustom-madesolutionsforourcustomers.Weunderstandthecustomersdomain.Wegetpaidforthedevelopment/consultingbasedontheabove. Developement,consultancy,educationandhostingofwellknownopensourceCMS(Plone) Wearesellingourexpertknowledgesthroughmaintenanceandsupportpackages,professionalserviceofferingsandedu-cationservices.

Oracle’srevenueisbasedonsoftwarelicenses,OracleConsultingservices,OracleSupportandOracleUniversity Duallincencemodelwherecommercialdevelopersmustbuyacommerciallicenceandnoncommercialuserscandown-loaddevelopenttoolforfree. Dual licence model. DevelopmenttoollicencedunderGPLavailabletononcommercialusersandcommerciallicenceofsamesoftwareisavailabletocommercialusers. SellservicesrelatedtoOSSdeliveredtocustomersandaggregatesOSSelementsintocustomerspecificsolutions.Modelisbasedprimarilyonsellingconsulting,development,serviceandsupport. BuildssolutionsontopofeZSystemsEnterpriseOpenSourceCMSandselldevelopmen,training,supportservicestocustomers.AlsodevelopsitownpripårietaryaddonstotheplatformandtdistributestheseintheeZEcosystem Consultingservicesthatleadstoasubscriptionand/orasupportagreement.WeseesupportanssubscriptionsasthekeyfeaturesinourbusinessmodelWeuseopensourceproducttointegrateanddesignbusinesscriticalsolutionsforourcustomers.Sothemainpartofourrevenuecomesfromserviceandsupport.Wealsoreusesolutionsforothercustomerstomakeawinwinbusiness.Costforproductmaintananceandsailesarealsoreducedbyusingopensourceandcooperationwithcustomers Wesellsupportcontractswithfixedratee-mailsupport,additionalphonesupporthours,training,andadpationofsoftwaretoclientsneeds.FinancingofourownOSsoftwareisdonepartiallybyjoininganukberofclients(egdevelopmentcost100k=5clientsx20k),partiallyasowninvestment. RedBridgemainbusinessisinfrastructureconsultinglikePre-studies,ProofofConcepts,implementations,deploymentofOpenSourceandMixedsource.WearealsoprovideOpenSourcehelpdeskandsupport. Combinedopensoucrcecodewithpropertarycode,offeragreatsolutiontothemarket.Revenueinlicensfees,maitenece,support,consultingandeducation.Allrevenuestemsfromsupportservicesandguantees.Servicesincludebug,fixes,deliveryofnewfunctionalityanddiffer-enttypesoghelpandsupportpackages.Theseareclassiefiedaccordingtoservicelevelslikeresponsandfixtimes.

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XIX

Own words ecosystem ActiveparticipationtotheMoodleprojectcommunityworkinFinland,Mediamaisteri’secosystemincludesalso3-4smallercompanies,nowbiggercompaniesinterestedtoworkwiththeprojecttooworkingwiththecommunities(mainlyLinuxdistros),4-5softwarecompaniesaroundthemfromthedifferentareas(IT-services,hardwaresuppliers) ersonnelinvolvedinopensourceprojectsasanindividuals,nextyear’strendistobuildanecosystemsaroundpartlytheirproductandgetcompaniesinvolvedreleasingdevelopmentworkforthecommunity,fixingbugs,workingtogetherwithsmallIT-companieswithsameareainFinland(asanweaknetwork)notmuchcontributingtothecommunity,earliermorecontribution,notmuchco-operationwithothercompaniesespeciallywithintheOSprojects, activelyinvolvedwithAdempierecommunityandSSLexplorerandsomeotherones,localisation,tryingtocreateacom-panynetworkforbiggerprojectswithsharedinterfaceCloselyworkingwithAlfrescocommunity,contributing,workingasaFinnishpartner.Workingwithfewcompaniesaspartnersnotmuchcontributing,co-operationwithothercompanieswithLinux-basedcomponents 2-3smallecompanies-enmd2-3largemixedcompanies.WearepartnerswithmainsuppliersofOpenSourcebasedinfrastructureproducts,e.g.RedHat,Novell,Ubuntuetc Asthecustomersdonotcasewhetherthesoftwareisfreeornot,ourecosystemistheexistingecosystemssurroundingthefreesoftwareweuse.

WeuseseveralpiecesofpopularOSS,andregularlydonateorsponsorprojects. Wesupportinteroperabilitywithopenstandardsandopensourcesoftwarebecausewebelievethatthiswilleventuallybecomeacustomerdemandinthefuture.

Ourconsultantscontibrutetoopensourceprojectsthatweuse.Wefindandreportbugs,makepatchesandanswerques-tionsinforums.Anexampleis:JBossJBPM-weusedittomodelandimplementacustomersbusinessprocess.Anotherex-ampleis:MuleESB,weusedthatasfrontendtoanexistingsystem,makingthatexistingavailabletoalotofothersystems.WeusesomeoftheotherPlonedevelopersmodules/code/examplesinourprojects.Whenwedoinggenericfunctionswetrytogivethembacktothecommunity.WeattendsprintsandouremployeesblogstotellaboutinventionsandmethodsOurcommunityiscenteredaroundourOpenSourceproductsandweareencouragepartnersandcustomerstoparticipatetodeveloptheecosystem.

Oracle’sOpenSourceactivities:http://oss.oracle.com/index.html Buildingsoftwaredevelopingconsultanthousesaspartners.Theydonotpayforthedevelopmenttools,buttheircustom-ersdowhenbuyingsoftware. largeecosystemofOpenSource(noncommercial)developersandcommercialsoftwaredevelopmenthousesandconsultan-cies. VeryactiveinOSSworkinscandinavia,buthasnotdevelopedtheirowncommunity.OwnstwootherOSSdaughtercompa-nies,SkolelinuxandOberon.KeymemberoftheeZEcosystem,goldpartner WehaveawidevarietyofbusinessgoingonbothinPublicsectorandinlargeprivatecompanies,themainareasisMiddle-ware,EnterpriseContentManagementandindiffrentbusinesssolutionssuchasCRM. Ourecosystemismainlybuiltaroundthecustomerandthedeliveredsolution.ForexamplewehavesolutionstogetherwithTheSwedishNationalHeritageBoardfortheareaofheritageandthehistoricenvironment. MemberandinitiatorofOpenSourceSweden(businessassociation),partnerwithanumberofOScompanies,subcontrac-torstosome,maincontractortoothers. WearepromotingOpenSourceandsellingsubscriptionsofcommercialOpenSource. Cendiousesdifferentopensourceprojectandthenmixitwithownpropetarycodetoofferthemarketagreatsolution.Cendioisactiveinvariousopensourceprojectsanddelivercodeintotheseprojects. partofadevelopmentcommunityandecosystemogothercompanieswithminimum10contributingdevelopersspreadaccros3-5companies/partnersandcustomers.

Join ecosystem Justcallandtelltheinterest,thenanevaluationwhetheritisacompetitororaco-operator Justcallandtelltheinterest,thenevaluationifthereisvalueforeverybody Allarewelcome co-operationpossiblewhensamegoalsandownspecialareas,misusersofOScomponentsnotwelcome lookingforcapablepartners foracompanyinterestedinco-operetion,thedirectface-to-facecontactsareamust Contacting,needtohavegoodcompetences companieswhohase.g.specialOS-componentsforlinuxwelcometothenetwork

XX The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Open Theywouldbuildknowledgetaroundanumberofproductsthatsuplementeachotherandstartsellingservicesaroundtheseproducts. Tojointheecosystemswearepartof,jointheemaillists,submitbugreportsandfixes,paydeveloperstofixbugsthatarenotcriticaltothecompany. Aswearenotdevelopingsoftware,joiningisdifficult.Serviceproviderscouldengageinstrategicpartnershipswithuspro-vidingcomplementaryservicestoourproducts/services. ? Wedonthaveourownecosystem.Wecontributetoothercompanies/organisations/foundationsecosystems. sponsoringconference,makedocumentation,contributewithcode,attendsprints,talkaboutPlonewhenevertheycanItissimple:justvisitourwebsiteandparticipateinofthemanyforums.Todosoyouhavetogetalogin. Pleasesee:http://oss.oracle.com/index.htmlRegisteratthehomepageofGaiaware,Fullyoutomatedprocess. Gotowww.trolltech.comandregister DonothaveanecosystemvisiteZ.noandthepartnerpage. OurpartnersshouldbebusinessdrivenactinginthefieldofProfessionalOpenSource. Wehavenospecialmodelforthat Useourproduct,giveusacall.OrtelluswhatOSproductsyoudeliverandhowtheyfitintooursystem. Idonotunderstandthequestion.Pleaseexplain? Theyshouldsendane-mailtopost@resight.nostatingtheirwilltojointthecommunity.TheycouldalsocontactPHPGroup-ware.

Contact MortenKjærsgaard Interestedinco-operation(TimoVä[email protected]) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]@cc-systems.com [email protected] TorbenSoerensen/[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] LeifLodahl:[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Justvisitourwebsite,getaloginorwriteanemail. [email protected] Stiansolberg [email protected] [email protected] CarlJAntonsson/[email protected]@curalia.se [email protected] JonasFeist,DirectorofSales,mobile+46-706033324 [email protected] [email protected]

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXI

APPENDIX5:

An Example of a Supplier-driven site: The Danish Software ExchangeInordertoachievethegoalsthatanopensourceinitiativeisaimingfor,theSoftwareExchange,thattheDanishMinistryforScienceandTechnology,hasbeencreatedusingtherecommendationsfromtheDanish2006survey.Theportalsoftware-boersen.dkhoststheSoftwareExchangewhichisahubforsoftware-sharingamongpublicbodiesinDenmarkaswellasameetingplaceforcustomersandsuppliersofopensourceservices.

In2006theNationalITandTelecomAgencyinDenmark,adepartmentundertheMinistryofScienceandTechnology,gaveoutthetasktodevelopacommunityofpublicIT-managersforexchangingsoftwareandexperiences.Asecondarypurposewastoprovidecontactbetweensoftware-providersandexistingandpotentialusersofopensourcesoftware.

Theportalprovidesasynergyeffectforsuppliersandusersthroughtheinclusivecommunityitserves.Theexchangeofexperiences,knowledgeandcompetenciesprovidesafoundationforfurtherdevelopmentandimprovementsofthesolu-tionsalreadyinuseingovernmentorganisations.

TheSoftwareExchangeworksasapubliclyaccessablesoftwarelibrarywithopensourcesoftwareandasamarketwheresupplierscancompeteonmarkettermssellingopensourcesoftwarerelatedservices,becauseofanaccessiblesourcecodeoftheprojectspublished.Forsuppliersthisentailsanencreasedgroupofpossiblecustumersandusersofopensourcesoftware.Atthesametimeorganisationsacquiringsoftwareisofferedanunhazardousacquisitionaswellasthepossiblitiesoffurtherdevelopmentandsupport.

Theorganisationis’nttiedtoasinglesupplierorvendorofsoftware,abletodictatepricesandtermsofuse.Fundamentalbarrierstotheuseofopensourceisremovedandtheriskofbeingtiedtoasinglesupplierissignificantlydiminished.Thusthepublicorganisationscanachievemore”valueformoney”whichagaincreatesabetterincentiveforinvestmentinsolu-tionsbasedonopensourcesoftware.Theopennessandapproachabilityknownfromtheworldofopensourcebocomesageneralterminthemarket.

Totargettheuncertaintyonthequalityofopensourcesoftwaresolutions,whichisasignificantbarriertopublicbodies’se-lectionhereof,theSoftwareExchangetriestoeradicatethisuncertainty,whichislargelybasedontheabsenceofunbiasedinformation.

TheSoftwareboersen-portalgivesthedecisionmakersofpublicDenmarkthebasisfortheirevaluationofthedifferentpos-sibilitiesinthesoftwaremarket,throughtheinteractionofsuppliersandusers.

ThecreationoftheSoftwareExchangemadeitpossibleforuserstoapproachthesitedependingoftheirexpectations.Userscanengageincontactwiththeindividualsorbusinesseswhohasthecompetenciesorexperiencesdemanded.TheSoftwareExchangecreatesalevelfieldforallactorsinthesoftwaremarketandtherebyfacilitatesthedecisionprocessforallpublicsectorIT-managers.

Theportalencouragesopenandinteractivecommunicationamongstthedifferentusertypes.Allusers,approvedbythewebmaster,caneditthesiteandupdatetheirowninformation.Thesiteoffersanarrayofdifferentmodulesorservicesavailabletotheuseraccordingtotheirindividualneeds.Atthesametime,thesemodulescollectsrelevantinformationanddistributesthisthroughoutthesite.Inthiswaysuppliers,developersandpublicinstitutionsareconnectedwitheachotherthroughtheSoftwareExchange.

OneofthetechnicalchallengesinthedevelopmentoftheSoftwareExchangewastohavethemanymodulesofthecon-tentmanagementsystemPlone,workingtogethertogiveusersanexperienceofanintegratedsystemwithintheframe-workofthesite.Theresultwasanadvancedwebsitethatprovidesknowledge,informationandinteractioninaneasytouseformat.

TheSoftwareExchangehasbeendevelopedsothattheoveralldesignandvisualidentityaswellasthestructureofinforma-tionissubjectedtoawishofmaximumusability.

Thisiseasilyseeninthechoiceofasimpleandinvitingdesign,easy-to-readtypographyandalownumberofoptionsonthecentralpagesofthesite.Theuseofcoloursarechosentosupportthefunctionalityofthesite.Easyrecognitionofthecoloursenhancestheuserfriendlinesswithregardstoidentificationofnavigationandoptions.

XXII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX6

Open Source Business (Models)

1) Open Source + Service Whatitmeans: Companiessellsupportandservicesaroundopen-sourcesoftware. Who’sdoingit: Compiere(ERP),JBoss(middleware),RedHat(Linux) AdvantagesforCIOs: Youpayonlyforsupport,notsoftware.Thecosttoswitchprovidersisrelativelylowbecausethe

sourcecodeisavailabletoanyone. Startupchallenges: Difficulttobuildbusinessesbecauseswitchingcostsarelow,asarebarrierstoentry.CIOswillalways

favorlarge,establishedvendorsoverstartupsunlessthestartupsalsocontrolcodedevelopment.Hardtogetventurefundingbecauseventurecapitalistsarelookingforsustainablecompetitiveadvantageintheirinvestments.Unlessthesoftwareiscomplexormission-critical,CIOsmaychoosetosupportitthemselves.

2) Mixed Whatitmeans: Anopen-sourcecodebasewithproprietaryadd-ons. Who’sdoingit: Sourcefire(security),SugarCRM AdvantagesforCIOs: CIOsmaynotneedtheproprietarystuff,butiftheydothey’llalreadyhaveacquireddeepexperience

withtheopen-sourceproductbeforebuyingtheadd-ons.Startupchallenges: There’samplemotivationtomaketheopen-sourceproductinferiortotheproprietarypackage,trans-

formingtheopensourceintotrialsoftware.Ifthathappens,theremaybeabacklashamongopen-sourcedevelopersanduserswantingtoseeallthecode.

3) Open Source + Buy Off Whatitmeans: Companiesofferaproprietarylicensefortheiropen-sourcesoftwaresothatuserscanmodifythe

softwareandredistributeitwithouthavingtomakethecodechangesavailabletothepublic. Who’sdoingit: MySQL(database),Sleepycat(database)AdvantagesforCIOs: Theopen-sourcesoftwarehasallthefeaturesoftheproprietaryversion.Startupchallenges: Salesoftheproprietaryversionarelimitedmostlytothosecompaniesthatwanttoredistributeitas

partoftheirownhardwareorsoftwarepackages.

4) Open Source + AggregationWhatitmeans: Companiesassemblevariousopen-sourcesoftwarepackagesintointegratedunitsthatareeasierfor

CIOstoconsume. Who’sdoingit: Exadel,Navica,SourceLabs,SpikeSource AdvantagesforCIOs: Simplifiesopen-sourceintegrationandsupport. Startupchallenges: Barrierstoentryarelow,branddifferentiationisdifficult,lackofownershipofopen-sourceprojects

limitstheinfluenceofthecompanyinthedevelopmentofthecode.

5) Open Source + Hardware Whatitmeans: Hardwaremakersuseopensourceasthefoundationforthesoftwarethatrunstheirmachines.Who’sdoingit: Cisco,Digium,Netezza,Nokia AdvantagesforCIOs: Lowerpricesonhardware. Startupchallenges: It’sdifficulttodifferentiateonhardwarealone,especiallywhenCIOsarelookingtostandardizetheir

infrastructure

Mikko Puhakka

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXIII

APPENDIX7

Glossary of Open Source Software Terminology

ThisglossarycontainstermsthatarecommonlyusedwhendiscussingOpenSourceSoftware.

CCommunity: Groupofpeoplesharingnacommongoalorinterest.Oftenthesecommunitiesinteractvia

theinternet,discussingideas,sharingknowledgeandcreatingsoftware.AlmosteveryOpenSourceprojecthasitsowncommunity.

DDistribution: HundredsofOpenSourceprojectsarewritingsoftwaretoperformcertaintasks.Althoughtheyforma

strongnetwork,eachoftheseprojectsisjustresponsibleforitsownsoftware.Specialorganisationsbundleallthesedifferentapplicationsforusebyothers.Theyoftenaddaninstallationprogramandconfigurationtoolstomakelifeeasierfortheuser.Thesebundlingsarecommonlyreferredtoasdistributions.

FFLOSS: Free/Libre/OpenSourceSoftware,thetermmostcommonlyusedwhentalkingabouteitherFree(Libre):

SoftwareorOpenSourceSoftware.

GGNU: Recursiveacronymfor“GNU’sNotUnix”.TheGNUprojectaimstoprovideacompleteUnixoperating

system,whichcanbefreelyused,copiedandmodifiedaccordingtotheprinciplesofFreeSoftware.

GNU/Linux: AnoperatingsystembasedonGNU,usingLinuxasitskernel.

KKernel: Thecoreofasystem.LinuxisthekerneloftheGNU/Linuxoperatingsystem.

LLinux: Theterm“Linux”isusedtorepresentdifferentthings,dependingonthecontext: • Kernel:initspureform,Linuxisonlythekernelofanoperatingsystem. • Operating system:MostcommonlytheLinuxkernelisusedasthecoreoftheGNUsystem.

ThisentiresystemiscalledGNU/Linux,butisoftenabbreviatedtojust“Linux”. • Distribution:ThereareseveraldistributionsofGNU/Linuxprovidedbydifferentorganisations. Peoplewhosaythey“runLinux”oftenmeantheyinstalledoneofthesedistributionsontheir computer.

OOpen Source: Thistermcanrepresentdifferentthings: • License rules: Asetofruleswhichasoftwarelicensemustcomplytoinordertobecalled

“OpenSource”.Clickhereforalistoftheserules. • Software license:Alicensethatcompliestotheforementionedsetofrules.Suchalicenseiscalled

an“OpenSourcelicense”. • Project:Agroupofpeopleworkingonasoftwareproductthatislicensedunderan

OpenSourcelicense. • Software product: SoftwarelicensedunderanOpenSourcelicense.Theproductitselfis

referredtoasan“OpenSourceproduct”or“OpenSourceSoftware”.

SSource code: Thehuman-understandabletextsthatprogrammerstypetowriteapplications.

XXIV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

APPENDIX8

PROGRAM

Welcome to the Open Nordic Conference eZ Systems, ICT Norway, National Center for Open Source and ICT Grenland welcome you to 3 different, but still very related conferences. They are all related to open source and promoting the use of free software.

1. Open Nordic Conference - Open Source Software and the use of open standards.

2. eZ Conference & Awards - The eZ Ecosystem and Enterprise Content Management.

3. Open Nordic Mobile - Developing Open Source business with mobile solutions.

OP E Nnordic C o n f e r e n c e 2 0 0 8

June 19-20, Skien, Norway

Speakers

There are several speakers of international acclaim who will be at the Open Nordic Conference.

Dag Wigum TimeCIO Thursday, 16:10ShibstedTalk: How Open Source is Affecting the Media IndustryTrack: eZ Media

Jean Gondè TimeCTO Thursday, 15:00LagardèreTalk: Global Enterprise Content ManagementTrack: eZ Media

James Hewes Time:Head of International Development Thursday, 15:35BBCTalk: BBC Online Media PublishingTrack: eZ Media

Terrence Barr Time:Senior Technologist Thursday, 11:30Sun Talk: Future of Java on mobile phonesTrack: Open Nordic Mobile

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXV

Espen Andersen TimeAssociate Professor, BI Friday, 13:00Department of Strategy and Logistics at the Norwegian School of Management (BI)Talk: Disruptive technologies - open source on mobileTrack: Open Nordic Mobile

Paul Chaffey TimeCEO Friday, 14:55AbeliaTalk: Mobile applications making the world flatterTrack: Open Nordic Mobile

Bård Farstad TimeCTO Thursday, 16:45eZ SystemsTalk: Open Source Technology Entrance in Online Digital MediaTrack: eZ Media

Henning Sund TimeDepartement Manager Friday, 10:50Edda MediaTalk: Online Digital Media at Edda MediaDay: eZ Media

Program day 1

Thursday 19th.

Thursday 19th of June 2008

Track Track 1: Open Nordic Track 2: eZ Media Track 3: eZ Best Practises Track 4: Open Nordic MobileRoom Peer Gynt Terje Vigen Eyolf (sublevel) Hedda (sublevel)

08:00 Registration Registration Registration

08:30 Welcome for eZ Partners

08:40 eZ Partner workshop (Room: Terje Vigen)

09:00 WORKSHOP 0900-12:00

Open collaboration on a Nordic Open Source master program.

Chair: Tor Lønnestad, Ass. professor, University College of Telemark.

Part 1: Presentations on current activities on selected Universities in the Nordics

09:00 - OSS teaching and research at Uni-versity of Skövde, Sweden by Bjørn Lundell

(chairman of Open Source Sweden)OSS teaching and research at University of Agder, Norway By Janis Gailis (Ass.

professor University of Agder)10:00-10:10 - Break

10:10 - OSS teaching and research at Uni-versity of Oslo, PhD student Ola Titlestad

10:40-10:50 Break Part 2: 10:50- 12:00 Panel discussions

“Opening the mobile track” Telenor R&I, Trolltech & Wireless Future

09:15 “Nokia on open source”Keynote: Mikko Terho (Nokia)

10:00 Break

10:10 “An overview of the open mobile landscape”Hilde Lovett (Telenor R&I)

10:40 Break

10:50 “Mobile Developers Toolbox”Else Nordhagen (Telenor R&I)

11:20 Break

11:30 “Future of Java on mobile phones” Keynote: Terrence Barr (Sun)

12:00 Lunch Lunch

12:30 Lunch for eZ Partners

13:00 Grand Opening (Room: Dovre)Heidi Austlid Arnesen, CEO Norwegian OSS Competency Center together with Aleksander Farstad (CEO, eZ Systems)

13:10 Main keynote: “Open standards in real life” (Room: Dovre)Bart Hanssens (CTO, Belgian Federal Government)

13:50 Break

14:00 “Get your projects shared!”Mads Östling (SE OSS Center)

Heidi A. Arnesen (CEO NO OSS Center)Morten K. Hansen (CEO DK Software Exch.)

eZ Keynote: “The Content Management market from an enterprise open source perspective” (Room: Terje Vigen)Aleksander Farstad (CEO, eZ Systems)

“Open phones” Ole Tange (OpenMoko)

XXVI The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

Else Nordhagen (Telenor R&I)

11:20 Break

11:30 “Future of Java on mobile phones” Keynote: Terrence Barr (Sun)

12:00 Lunch Lunch

12:30 Lunch for eZ Partners

13:00 Grand Opening (Room: Dovre)Heidi Austlid Arnesen, CEO Norwegian OSS Competency Center together with Aleksander Farstad, CEO eZ Systems

13:10 Main keynote: “Open standards in real life”Peter Strickx (CTO, Belgian Federal Government)

13:50 Break

14:00 “Get your projects shared!”Mads Ostling (SE OSS Center)

Heidi A. Arnesen (CEO NO OSS Center)Martin Grønbæk (CEO DK Software Exch.)

eZ Keynote: “The Content Management market from an enterprise open source perspective” (Room: Peer Gynt)

Aleksander Farstad (CEO eZ Systems)

“Open phones” (Open Moco)

14:45 Break

15:00 “Expanding your business by using the Open Nordic shared repository”

Anders Liling (REDPILL)

“Global Enterprise Content Management at Lagardère” Jean Gondé (CTO, Lagardère)

“Discover the possibilities of eZ Publish” Christian Lundvang (Nexus) &Frank Dege (silver.solutions)

“XUI, future GUI on mobile phones“ Andreas Aardal Hanssen (Trolltech)

15:25 Break

15:35 “BBC Online Media Publishing”James Hewes, Head of International

Development at BBC15:45 Break Break

15:55 “200 billions EUR saved by using a reposi-tory style development”

Christian Lanng (IT & Telestyrelsen, DK)

“The near future of eZ Components” Derick Rethans (eZ Systems)

“Spectrum of open source research at NTNU”M. Letizia Jaccheri (NTNU) together with

student Eskil Sund16:00 Break

16:10 “How Open Source is affecting the Media Industry”Dag Wigum (CIO, Schibsted)

16:40 Break

16:45 “OSS, a strategic resource to grow your business“

Anna Ö. Rönnbäck (Linkøping University)“Open Funding - Opening the process of

funding collaborative innovation projects”Vidar Top and Tor-Arne Bellika (TOIC)

“Open Source Tech. Entrance in Online Digital Media”Bård Farstad (CTO, eZ Systems)

“Scalable eZ Publish Hosting”Paul Forsyth (WebDeal)

17:10 Break

17:30 eZ Keynote: Expert Panel - The future of Online Digital Media (Room: Terje Vigen)

19:00 eZ Awards Cocktail Reception

20:00 eZ Awards (Room: Dovre)

21:00 - 01:00 Post Awards Party - End of day one


15:55 “200 billions EUR saved by using a reposi-tory style development”

Christian Lanng (IT & Telestyrelsen, DK)

“The near future of eZ Components” Derick Rethans (eZ Systems)

“Spectrum of open source research at NTNU”M. Letizia Jaccheri (NTNU)

16:00 Break

16:10 “How Open Source is affecting the Media Industry”Dag Wigum (CIO, Schibsted)

16:40 Break

16:45 “Open Funding - Opening the process of funding collaborative innovation projects”

Vidar Top and Tor-Arne Bellika (TOIC)

“Open Source Tech. Entrance in Online Digital Media”Bård Farstad (CTO, eZ Systems)

“Fragmentation of devices - can open source help?”

Panel discussion17:10 Break

17:30 eZ Keynote: Expert Panel - The future of Online Digital Media

19:00 eZ Awards Cocktail Reception

20:00 eZ Awards

21:00 - 01:00 Post Awards Party - End of day one

Friday 20th of June 200809:00 Main keynote: Adam Jollans, IBM (Room: Dovre)

09:45 Break

09:55 “Seed and Venture Capital workshop”Chaired by Mikko Puhakka

“Benefits and challenges wth Web TV at DN”Gunnar Lier (Editor in Chief)

“Energy Saving Trust Case Study”Tony Wood (VisonWT)

“Mobile Games”Knut Yrvin (Trolltech) together with students, Oisin

John Mackeow & Trond Grefsrud

10:40 Break

10:50 Previous session continues... “Bold, brave, free”Henning Sund (Departement Manager, Edda Media)

“Oracle and eZ”Harald Løvvik (Oracle) & Gaetano Giunta (eZ Systems)

“Creating an open environment for mobile payment” Lars Hoff (Telenor R&I)

11:30 Break

11:40 Previous session continues... “Using eZ Publish as a Digital Asset Management System”Bernard De Groot (CIO, SanomaWSOY)

“eZ Publish on demand”Jostein Håvaldsrud (CTO, Mamut)

“Open Standards, Web 2.0”Thomas Hansen (Gaia)

12:10 Lunch

13:00 “Governing the use of Open Source”Martin Michlmayr (hp)

“The challenges for small & medium publishers”Veronica Zimmer (Director, Children’s house)

“eZ Publish status” Paul Borgermans (eZ Systems)

“Disruptive technologies - open source on mobile” Espen Andersen (BI)

13:45 Break

13:55 “On track with Open Green Software – saving MEUR 100”

Ole Morten Killi (Bouvet AS)

Booklaunch: “Selling Open Source – how to do it” E. Vidar Top (TOIC)

Tutorial: “Building an Online Magazine with eZ Flow”Nicolas Pastorino (eZ Systems)

“eZ Components in a technical view”Tobias Schlitt (eZ Systems)

“Fragmentation of devices - can open source help?”

Panel discussion

14:40 Break

14:55 Main keynote: Mobile applications making the world flatter (Room: Dovre) Paul Chaffey (Abelia)

15:40 Break

15:55 Student panel (Room: Dovre)

17:00 End of day two

Program day 2

Friday 20th.


The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXVII

eZ Awards categories> Community member of the year > Contribution of the year > Partner of the year > Rising star of the year > Publication of the year> Site of the year > Project of the year> eZ Components Award> Most valuable individual contribution to Open Source Software in the Nordics> Most valuable company contribution to Open Source Software in the Nordics> Most valuable contribution to Open Collaboration Culture in the Nordics> Honorary award

Travel information

Train www.nsb.no + 47 815 00 888 Taxi www.grenlandtaxi.no + 47 35 55 34 24Flight (Sandefjord) www.torp.no + 47 33 42 70 00Flight (Oslo) www.osl.no + 47 06400

Contact info eZ Contact info IbsenhusetPhone: + 47 35 58 70 20 Phone: + 47 35 58 13 30Web: http://conference.ez.no Web: http://ibsenhuset.no

XXVIII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

www.webdealhosting.com

Reliability, Stability, Power...Premium hosting services for your business critical websites

Dedicated Servers

eZ Publish

Premium Shared Hosting

Remote Backup

Oslo • London • San Francisco

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXIX

APPENDIX9:

PRESS FACSIMILES

XXX The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXXI

XXXII The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration XXXIII

XXXIV The promise of Nordic Open Source collaboration

madcoil.com

Nordic Innovation Centre

The Nordic Innovation Centre initiates and financesactivities that enhance innovation collaboration anddevelop and maintain a smoothly functioning market inthe Nordic region.

The Centre works primarily with small and mediumsizedcompanies (SMEs) in the Nordic countries. Otherimportant partners are those most closely involved withinnovation and market surveillance, such as industrialorganisations and interest groups, research institutionsand public authorities.

The Nordic Innovation Centre is an institution under theNordic Council of Ministers. Its secretariat is in Oslo.

For more information: www.nordicinnovation.net

Nordic Innovation CentreStensberggata 25NO-0170 OsloNorway

Phone: +47-47 61 44 00Fax: +47-22 56 55 65

[email protected]