91
Open Source & Open Development Sander van der Waal [email protected]

Open Source & Open Development

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Open Source & Open Development

Open Source & Open Development

Sander van der Waal [email protected]

Page 2: Open Source & Open Development

Agenda

OSS Watch

Open Source & Open Development

Case studies of successful open source projects

Break

Copyright, policy, licensing and governance

Business models for open source

Case studies for commercial success with open source

Page 3: Open Source & Open Development

OSS Watch – What we do

Advise on all things open source

Services

Consultancies, events, presentations

Project support – community development

Software sustainability beyond funding

Core services free to HE / FE in the UK

Page 4: Open Source & Open Development

www.oss-watch.ac.uk

newsletter.oss-watch.ac.uk

osswatch.jiscinvolve.org

Find out more!

Page 5: Open Source & Open Development

What is Free and Open Source Software?

Software that the user has the right to adapt and distribute

Access to the source code

Often available at minimal or no cost

Often maintained and developed by a community

Increasingly high public profile and market share (Linux, Apache httpd, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Android (mostly))

Basis of later open licences like Creative Commons and Open Database License

Page 6: Open Source & Open Development

Some History

Until the late 1970s most software thought to have little intrinsic value

Exchange of software and its source code normal (with licences that allowed adaptation and redistribution)

Arrival of personal computers in the mid 1970s changed the perception of software's value

Software became productized, source code kept private

Many developers, particularly within academic communities, felt that this was detrimental to software quality

Page 7: Open Source & Open Development

“The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent [on] Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?”

Bill Gates Computer Notes 1976

Page 8: Open Source & Open Development

“I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way…

So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free.”

Richard Stallman, GNU Manifesto, 1985

Page 9: Open Source & Open Development

The FSF's Four Freedoms

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Page 10: Open Source & Open Development

“Linux is subversive. Who would have thought even five years ago (1991) that a world-class operating system could coalesce as if by magic out of part-time hacking by several thousand developers scattered all over the planet, connected only by the tenuous strands of the Internet?”

Eric Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, 1996-7

Page 11: Open Source & Open Development

Open Source Initiative

In early 1998 Netscape decides to release the source code of its struggling web browser to the world

Raymond's apolitical, business-friendly explanation of the virtues of the Free Software ought to have an advocacy group

In February 1998 the Open Source Initiative is founded, with Raymond as its first president.

The term 'Open Source' begins to be widely used.

The OSI adapts the Debian Free Software Guidelines to define what it means by ‘Open Source’

The resulting Open Source Definition gives ten criteria for an ‘open source’ licence

Page 12: Open Source & Open Development

Open Source Definition

Freely Redistributable

Source Code Included

Derived Works Permitted

Integrity of Author’s Source Code (diffs and patches)

No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour

Distribution of Licence (no additional licences required)

Licence Must Not Be Specific to a Product (or distribution)

Licence Must Not Restrict Other Software

Licence Must Be Technology-Neutral (no 'click wrap')

Page 13: Open Source & Open Development

Open Source Initiative

Over seventy licences are accredited by the OSI as meeting these criteria

The most commonly used are the BSD (permissive) and the GPL (copyleft)

The sheer number of OSI-approved licences is officially considered a problem

For practical purposes OSS Watch defines its remit with reference to the OSI approved licence list

Page 14: Open Source & Open Development

Words and Tensions

Many ‘Free Software’ supporters, including Richard Stallman, see the OSI as a deliberate attempt to appropriate their movement while stripping it of its political aims.

The language itself has become politicised

Whether one says ‘Free’ or ‘Open’ has become an indicator of which ‘side’ one supports

The unwieldy phrase ‘Free and Open Source Software’ is used by those who do not wish to take sides

Stallman also campaigns against use of the phrase ‘intellectual property’

Page 15: Open Source & Open Development

Open development is…

“Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process.” - http://www.opensource.org/ A way for distributed team members to collaboratively develop a shared resource

Page 16: Open Source & Open Development

Open development is…

Particularly useful in distributed self selecting teams

Very common in open source projects

Key attributes include:

User engagement

Transparency

Collaboration

Agility

Page 17: Open Source & Open Development

Open development is agile…

Many agile practices evolved from or alongside open development, e.g.

Collective code ownership

Incremental design and architecture

Real customer involvement

Revision Control

Page 18: Open Source & Open Development

Open development is Not agile…

Some Agile methods are not appropriate

e.g. Does not require co-location

Does allow anyone to participate

NOTE: this does not mean that anyone has the right to modify open source code in the core repository

Page 19: Open Source & Open Development

Platform for collaboration

Using the common tools in open projects:

Mailing Lists / Forums for communication

Website / blog / wiki

Issue tracker

Version Control System (GIT, SVN, Mercurial)

Community development

Page 20: Open Source & Open Development

Open Development is managed

Progression through project roles

User -> Contributor -> Committer -> Maintainer

Governance

How are decisions made?

How are conflicts resolved?

How do you gain influence?

IPR management

Page 21: Open Source & Open Development

Case studies of successful open source /

open development

Page 22: Open Source & Open Development

TexGen

• Textile CAD modeller• Developed at Nottingham’s Department of Mechanical,

Materials and Manufacturing• Generate geometric models of textiles and their composites

Page 23: Open Source & Open Development

Why open source TexGen?

• People can download TexGen and use it for free• Better level of both knowledge transfer and verification• Encourage third-party use / citation• Potential for collaboration• IPR issues are simplified

Page 24: Open Source & Open Development

Why not commercialise traditionally?

• Limited commercial value• Commercial customers would expect support• Small market - casual use does not occur• All development has to be undertaken in-house• Danger of inhibiting research collaborations

Page 25: Open Source & Open Development

Results

• Over 5,000 downloads on SourceForge• Collaborations with previously unknown partners• Renewal of EPSRC's prestigious Platform Grant in 2009• Investment from commercial companies such as Boeing• In total approximately £1m research income

Page 26: Open Source & Open Development

Lessons learned

• High ROI to open source code• Excellent marketing

• Free publicity of research group’s expertise• Opportunity to create new partnerships

• There’s no one single way of doing it• Best application of open innovation in software• Funders love it

Page 27: Open Source & Open Development

Apache Wookie (incubating)…

Server for uploading and deploying widgets Implementation of emerging W3C standard Extracted from larger EU project context as a discrete project A good fit with Apache Software Foundation Already some interest from outside the project

Page 28: Open Source & Open Development

Networking opportunities

• ASF community• Other interested projects• Mobile apps/widgets community• Android community• W3C Social Web XG

Page 29: Open Source & Open Development

New Partnerships

Page 30: Open Source & Open Development

Results• Very substantial value added by community• Income generated for next 3 years: ~£700k from two FP7

projects• Only actually core funded from Dec 09-Sep10 @ 0.2FTE

(around £12k)• Stepping stone to Apache Rave (Incubating)

Page 31: Open Source & Open Development

Rave: ecosystem of projects

Page 32: Open Source & Open Development

Legal aspects of open source

Page 33: Open Source & Open Development

Copyright...is a form of 'intellectual property'

is an unregistered right – it comes into existence at the same time that the work is 'fixed'

protects the 'fixed' form of an idea, not the idea itself

protects literary and artistic material, music, films, sound recordings and broadcasts, including software and multimedia

generally does not protect works that are 'insubstantial' – thus names and titles are not protected (although a 'passing off' action may be a possibility)

gives the author exclusive economic and moral rights over the copyrighted material

Page 34: Open Source & Open Development

What exclusive economic rights do copyright owners have?

Making copies

Issuing copies to the public (publication, performing, broadcasting, online distribution)

Renting or lending copies

Adapting the work

Page 35: Open Source & Open Development

What exclusive moral rights do copyright owners have?

In the case of software, none. Unlike other creators of literary works, software authors have no statutory protection against derogatory treatment of their code or automatic right to be identified as the author of their code

Page 36: Open Source & Open Development

When does copyright in software expire under UK law?

For literary works including software:

70 years after the death of the author

Calculating copyright expiry is made more complex by the fact that the duration has changed over the last 20 years. Luckily in the case of software its novelty and relatively short shelf-life mitigate this.

Page 37: Open Source & Open Development

What can I do with my copyright material?

Sell it (assign it) – transfer ownership of your rights

License it – grant use of your rights, possibly for a limited period or within a limited geographical area.

Page 38: Open Source & Open Development

A word about patents

Not at all the same thing

Generally OSS licensing of code is incompatible with the exploitation of software patents embodied in the code in question

European Patent Convention 1973 Article 52:“(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step.

(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

...

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;”

Page 39: Open Source & Open Development

A word about patents

In fact, over the last 20 years this exclusion has been rendered moot by repeated approval of patents by the EPO and national patent-granting bodies which are, in effect, for software.

Symbian’s recent win in the High Court against the Intellectual Property Office seems to indicate that software patents are now obtainable in the UK

Despite this, there seems to be a general reluctance to litigate in support of these patents in Europe.

Page 40: Open Source & Open Development

How FOSS Licensing Works...

What is a FOSS Licence?

A licence to exercise rights normally reserved to the author by copyright law Consistent with Open Source Definition (or Four Freedoms) Either explicitly perpetual or practically so A licence which offers a grant of rights to anyone

Page 41: Open Source & Open Development

How FOSS Licensing Works...

How does copyright law protect FOSS software?

No explicit communicated acceptance necessaryCopyright law effectively prevents copying, adaptation and distribution of copyright material without a licenceFOSS licences provide an avenue to licensed use if the user abides by the conditionsWithout the licence, it is likely no permission exists, and the author can take action for copyright infringement Generally considered to work, but little case law

Page 42: Open Source & Open Development

How FOSS Licensing Works...

How do FOSS Licences deal with patents?

Some licences (Apache 2, Nokia, Microsoft Reciprocal Licence and many others) explicitly grant rights to licensor's patents that are necessarily infringed by use or distributionEven those that do not will grant implied licences (in some jurisdictions) by permitting acts that would require a patent licenceSome licences terminate their patent grants if the licensee initiates patent infringement litigation against the licensor

Page 43: Open Source & Open Development

Varieties of FOSS Licence: Permissive Allow inclusion in non-FOSS software Suitable where widest uptake is desirable Examples of permissive licences are:

Modified BSD MIT Academic Free Apache Software Licence

Page 44: Open Source & Open Development

Varieties of FOSS Licence: Copyleft Derivative works, if distributed, must use same licence Cannot be incorporated into non-FOSS products Suitable when desire is to legally enforce FOSS status Examples of copyleft licences:

GNU General Public License Open Software License Common Development and Distribution License

Page 45: Open Source & Open Development

Partial Copyleft Derivative works, if distributed, use same licenceMay be incorporated into non-FOSS productsSuitable in order to keep a portion of the work FOSS

compromise between full copyleft and permissiveExamples of weak or partial copyleft licences:

GNU Lesser General Public LicenseMozilla Public LicenseEclipse Public License

Page 46: Open Source & Open Development

Varieties of FOSS Licence: Badgeware Only one 'badgeware' OSI-approved licence

Common Public Attribution License Adaptation of Mozilla Public License (partial copyleft) Derivative must prominently display original author's details or organisation at runtime.

Page 47: Open Source & Open Development

How to choose a licence?

Only considering popular licences?Copyleft vs. Permissive?How to deal with patents?Jurisdiction?

Page 48: Open Source & Open Development
Page 49: Open Source & Open Development

Copyright Ownership Models

• Centralised ownership• Copyright is owned by the project owner• Contributors assign copyright to project owner• Project owner releases under chosen FOSS licence

• Aggregated ownership• Copyright owned by original authors• Contributors license their code to project owner• Project owner releases under chosen FOSS licence

Page 50: Open Source & Open Development

Copyright Ownership Models

A Flawed Copyright Ownership model•Distributed ownership•Contributions individually licenced as FOSS•Common in the academic world•Collaboration AgreementsDon't use this model•Legal action against infringers hard to coordinate•Legal action against project requires coordination from defendants•Outbound licence changes require agreement from all

Page 51: Open Source & Open Development

Contributor Agreements and Governance

• Contributor Licence Agreements (CLA) required• Solve problems of distributed ownership• Can be a barrier to contribution so keep them simple• Well-run projects need a clear contribution policy

• what agreement is needed?• who can commit?• who decides what code is included in the release?• And more..

[email protected]

Page 52: Open Source & Open Development

Employees, Academics and Contractors

• Who owns “internal” contributions?• Employment contracts• IP Policies• Consultancy contracts

• Default position is that:• Employers own employees work• Contractors own their own work

• Academics often own their copyrighted work• See contract and policies

Page 53: Open Source & Open Development

An example policy: Oxford

• Release form from Research Services• Straight-forward assessment of components written and used• Sent to legal team• Also sent to our technology transfer unit ISIS Innovation

• Departmental policy for Oxford University Computing Services• Staff members may contribute code to foundations• Central registry of projects contributed to• Contributor Licence Agreements may be signed if needed• Example: Apache Software Foundation

Page 54: Open Source & Open Development

Making sure your code is releasable Strongly consider obtaining contributor licence agreements Keep track of your inbound licences and what they oblige you to do (licence compatibility) Keep track of the employment/consultancy agreements of contributors, including all institutional regulations that they import Keep track of funding conditions associated with contributors Use versioning system as a basis for this record-keeping Establish what (if any) patents might be obtainable in relation to the work, and plan your code accordingly Assess your competition and your risk

Page 55: Open Source & Open Development

Business models around open source

Page 56: Open Source & Open Development

Business and Sustainability Models

These are mostly not mutually exclusive, and will most often be used in combination as appropriate – more accurately they are elements of business models

This is still an emerging area of business practice

Some of the current success of FOSS software exploitation techniques may be attributable to dissatisfaction with more traditional proprietary techniques and their associated big-name vendors, rather than any innate superiority

It remains to be seen whether the current global financial difficulties will help FOSS business or hinder it. Analysts are currently predicting both.

Page 57: Open Source & Open Development

First - what you cannot / should not do

Charge for licences for specific uses of your code, for example commercial use (Open Source Definition point 6)

Charge for licences in general (Possible but subject to low/zero-cost competition from all recipients)

Tweak an existing FOSS licence for your purposes and still call your software Free Software or Open Source Software (Strong community rejection of these practices)

Silently incorporate FOSS software in your proprietary offering without abiding by the licence conditions (detection is likely, and although legal damages are unlikely, damage to reputation is certain)

Page 58: Open Source & Open Development

Academic Community Development

FOSS licensing permits a varied group of contributors to work on software that addresses a particular problem domain.

Institutions and their academics can gain public profile by contributing to such projects and becoming associated with respected tools in specific areas of research. It can also help ensure the continued existence of useful solutions.

Examples include BioImage Suite (biological image analysis software) YARP (experimental robotics software) and The Versioning Machine (software for aligning differing versions of xml-encoded texts).

Recognition for work on academic tools is still, however, some way behind more traditional forms of academic recognition for publication etc

Page 59: Open Source & Open Development

Establishing a separate legal entity

Adds to sustainability by isolating risks (IP infringement, event organisation, damages from failure) from the parent institution

Facilitates donation of money and simplifies tax issues

Most research institutions are already well-practised in setting up spin-out companies. In the case of sustaining FOSS projects some kind of not-for-profit entity may be just as or even more appropriate

Such an entity can still have an affiliated commercial entity engaged in exploiting the software and the brands that it stewards

Page 60: Open Source & Open Development

Moving into an external foundation

The benefits of foundation status have led to the establishment of umbrella foundations holding multiple FOSS projects.

Examples include the Apache Software Foundation, which supports Apache HTTP Server, Cocoon, Lucene, Software in the Public Interest, which supports the Debian Linux distribution and PostgreSQL, and the Software Freedom Conservancy, home to Samba, Busybox and Wine

Entering an umbrella foundation can radically reduce running costs for projects that receive financial donations, as the foundation will handle the necessary book-keeping, as well as providing the risk management benefits that come with separating legal responsibility for a project from your host institution

Page 61: Open Source & Open Development

'Community Source' Foundations

Where a number of separate institutions see a benefit in jointly developing a piece of FOSS, they can adopt a model which has come to be known, somewhat confusingly, as 'Community Source'

Each institution contributes resources to developing the code, the ownership of which rests in an external foundation

In the initial phases the code may be unavailable outside the foundation, although it will eventually be released under a FOSS licence

Contributing resources to the foundation buys institutions early code access and influence on the governance of the project and its functionality

Mellon-funded projects Sakai and Kuali both began using this model

Page 62: Open Source & Open Development

Consultancy

Consultancy is another traditional technique for educational institutions looking to financially exploit their resources

A more traditional model might be to sell licences to a piece of research-derived software and sell consultancy services and/or bespoke development services alongside it

Potentially a FOSS release of the software can improve uptake, given its low cost of acquisition, and drive the market for associated consultancy and development services more successfully than the traditional model

Page 63: Open Source & Open Development

Internal Cost Reduction

Institutions may be happy to sustain an internally-developed FOSS project themselves if the project can demonstrate that it drives down the running costs of that institution or solves an institutional problem

Projects that reduce costs in one institution may have good potential, when mature, to be deployed in others. This provides opportunities for paid consultancy and/or provision of the software as a service (see below)

Page 64: Open Source & Open Development

Provision of Paid Support / Documentation

Just because your code is freely available, it does not mean that the documentation or your help needs to be (as with the consultancy and bespoke development model)

Support can be provided in time- or incident-limited bundles

Support can be in the form of guaranteed performance on specific hardware

Documentation can take the form of paid access to a knowledge base of previously resolved issues

HOWEVER, in this case one is in competition with the software's user base/community, who may be willing to provide peer support for free

Page 65: Open Source & Open Development

Integration / Managed Upgrades

Managing the integration of various FOSS technologies, with their varying dependencies and release cycles, is a service that people are prepared to pay for

Similarly managing the deployment of upgrade patches can be a paid service

Bundles of tested, integrated FOSS software can be sold along with, potentially, support agreements

HOWEVER, close integration may trigger responsibilities in particularly copyleft licences that could prevent integrated distribution – read the licences

Page 66: Open Source & Open Development

Competitor Disruption

Sometimes a FOSS alternative to a competitor's product can disrupt their business model and provide competitive advantage (although this is almost never the sole motivation behind the release or distribution)

Examples (arguably) include Sun's OpenOffice.org, Google's bundling and distribution of Microsoft-competing software such as OpenOffice.org, Firefox and Chrome (the 'Google Pack'), Netscape Corporation's FOSS release of Netscape Navigator

Page 67: Open Source & Open Development

Software as a Service

Increasingly consumers are becoming comfortable with so-called 'cloud'-based software offerings – software that is accessed and used over the internet, and which stores data remotely from the user

SaaS can be a useful solution to the problem of institutionally developed software that relies integrally on copyleft-licensed code

Provision of service using copyleft software does not count as distribution, and thus does not trigger copyleft's reciprocal licensing responsibilities

HOWEVER – this is a known 'bug' in copyleft licensing, and licences such as the GNU Affero GPL v3 are already in existence to 'fix' it.

Page 68: Open Source & Open Development

Advertising / Referral

Your software or accompanying web site may be able to direct network traffic to an entity that is willing to pay for hits (although of course this functionality can always be engineered out by technically apt users)

This is Mozilla Foundation's main source of income

Firefox's built-in search box directs queries to Google

The vast majority of Mozilla Foundation's revenue ($132m in 2010) comes from Google under this deal.

Wordpress, the FOSS blogging software and hosting platform is partly funding their parent company Automattic through this model

Page 69: Open Source & Open Development

Training and Accreditation

As well as support and consultancy, generalised training documents, courses and qualifications may be viable products

Control of an associated trademark enables the provision of 'X-Certified Professional' style programmes

Actual training and examination are readily out-sourced

Page 70: Open Source & Open Development

Trademark Licensing / Merchandising

Just because your code is available under a FOSS licence, you do not have to permit universal use of your project's name and associated symbols

Unlike copyright, trademarks are a registered form of IP, meaning that you have to apply to relevant government agencies for ownership. However, compared to patent application, trademark registration is relatively inexpensive

Owning your trademark facilitates the sale of associated merchandise and accreditation and marks like “Powered by X” and “Using X technology”

Can be a deterrent to forking if the brand is strong enough – the motivation to increase personal reputation by providing functionality outside project “X” is partially undermined by the inability to call the new project “Improved X”

Page 71: Open Source & Open Development

Proprietary Versions and Components

Sometimes referred to disparagingly as the 'Bait and Switch' model

A FOSS edition of software is offered which lacks some of the functionality of a paid edition, either throughout its code or in the form of missing proprietary components

While the existence of better-supported or hardware-accredited forms of FOSS offerings is generally accepted by the FOSS community, proprietary components and versions are less well-liked (although there is perhaps growing acceptance as the community matures)

HOWEVER, this is another example of competing with the community. The FOSS model means that anyone can produce freely available versions of your paid functionality, given enough time and expertise

Page 72: Open Source & Open Development

Dual Licensing

Provided that you have the necessary ownership or sub-licensing rights over your project's code, you can provide it under differing licences

In the classic case, these would be a copyleft licence and a paid proprietary licence

Customers who wish to build software product incorporating your code and who do not wish to use the copyleft licence must pay for the proprietary licence

This is therefore most suitable for code which is readily susceptible to inclusion within commercial software products, for example database backends

Page 73: Open Source & Open Development

Case studies

Page 74: Open Source & Open Development

Example: Cranfield University

Library developed a survey tool based on Plone

Released as open source in 2006

Development has occurred internationally

Africa, North America, India and Europe

Eg. a major contribution from a South African company

Cranfield recognised within Plone community

Get development effort back

Ability to provide consultancy services

Page 75: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

Moodle at ULCC-

A Shared Service Success

Page 76: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

Facts & Figures

Page 77: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

# of Moodle / Mahara Instances

Page 78: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

# of Moodle / Mahara customers & instances 2011

Page 79: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

# Registered Moodle users

Page 80: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

Moodle Activity*

*Moodle activity is defined as any form of accessing, uploading and editing content by a registers ULCC Moodle user

Page 81: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

Average Activity (Activity per user)

*Moodle activity is defined as any form of accessing, uploading and editing content by a registers ULCC Moodle user

Page 82: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

ULCC’s Personalised LearningFramework

Page 83: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

Personlised Learning Framework

VLEPortfolio

PLP

Assessment

Portal

Page 84: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

ULCC’s e-Learning portfolio

Page 85: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

ULCC’s e-Learning portfolio

Page 86: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

The wider ecosystem

Page 87: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

ULCC’s e-Learning Service

• Hosting Levels (1-7) and support that fit your requirements

• PRINCE2 project management support for transition of VLE

• 24/7 customer support

• Integration with your existing IT systems (SITS, Agresso, Talis, etc.)

• Individual and bespoke staff training to maximise VLE usage

• Pro-active management of software upgrades

• Active customer community to share best practice and experience

Page 88: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

Our Customers

Page 89: Open Source & Open Development

www.ulcc.ac.uk

Partners/ Affiliates

Page 90: Open Source & Open Development

ULCC’s successful open source strategy

Share code and expertise with Moodle community

Build reputation in Moodle development

Successful service model

Now recognised team

Hosted MoodleMoot 2010 and 2011

Page 91: Open Source & Open Development

Do get in touch:

[email protected]://www.oss-watch.ac.uk

@osswatch