The Experts below are selected from a list of 150438 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Martin Michlmayr - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Quality practices and problems in Free Software projects
2005Co-Authors: Martin Michlmayr, F Hunt, David ProbertAbstract:Free Software and open source projects are often perceived to be of high quality. It has been suggested that the high level of quality found in some Free Software projects is related to the open development model which promotes peer review. While the quality of some Free Software projects is comparable to, if not better than, that of closed source Software, not all Free Software projects are successful and of high quality. Even mature and successful projects face quality problems; some of these are related to the unique characteristics of Free Software and open source as a distributed development model led primarily by volunteers. In exploratory interviews performed with Free Software and open source developers, several common quality practices as well as actual quality problems have been identified. The results of these interviews are presented in this paper in order to take stock of the current status of quality in Free Software projects and to act as a starting point for the implementation of quality process improvement strategies.
-
Software process maturity and the success of Free Software projects
Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies, 2005Co-Authors: Martin MichlmayrAbstract:The success of Free Software and open source projects has increased interest in utilizing the open source model for mature Software development. However, the ad hoc nature of open source development may result in poor quality Software or failures for a number of volunteer projects. In this paper, projects from SourceForge are assessed to test the hypothesis that there is a relationship between process maturity and the success of Free Software and open source projects. This study addresses the question of whether the maturity of particular Software processes differs in successful and unsuccessful projects. Processes are identified that are key factors in successful Free Software projects. The insights gained from this study can be applied as to improve the Software process used by Free Software projects.
-
managing volunteer activity in Free Software projects
USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2004Co-Authors: Martin MichlmayrAbstract:During the last few years, thousands of volunteers have created a large body of Free Software. Even though this accomplishment shows that the Free Software development model works, there are some drawbacks associated with this model. Due to the volunteer nature of most Free Software projects, it is impossible to fully rely on participants. Volunteers may become busy and neglect their duties. This may lead to a steady decrease of quality as work is not being carried out. The problem of inactive volunteers is intensified by the fact that most Free Software projects are distributed, which makes it hard to quickly identify volunteers who neglect their duties. This paper shows Debian's approach to inactive volunteers. Insights presented here can be applied to other Free Software projects in order to implement effective quality assurance strategies.
-
USENIX Annual Technical Conference, FreeNIX Track - Managing volunteer activity in Free Software projects
2004Co-Authors: Martin MichlmayrAbstract:During the last few years, thousands of volunteers have created a large body of Free Software. Even though this accomplishment shows that the Free Software development model works, there are some drawbacks associated with this model. Due to the volunteer nature of most Free Software projects, it is impossible to fully rely on participants. Volunteers may become busy and neglect their duties. This may lead to a steady decrease of quality as work is not being carried out. The problem of inactive volunteers is intensified by the fact that most Free Software projects are distributed, which makes it hard to quickly identify volunteers who neglect their duties. This paper shows Debian's approach to inactive volunteers. Insights presented here can be applied to other Free Software projects in order to implement effective quality assurance strategies.
Eben Moglen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Freeing the Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture
Maine Law Review, 2004Co-Authors: Eben MoglenAbstract:The subject matter we’re going to talk about is variously named, and the words have some resonances of importance. I’m going to use the phrase ”Free Software” to describe this material and I’m going to suggest to you that the choice of words is relevant. We are talking not merely about a form of production or a system of industrial relations, but also about the beginning of a social movement with specific political goals which will characterize not only the production of Software in the twenty-first century, but the production and distribution of culture generally. My purpose this morning is to put that process in large enough context so that the significance of Free Software can be seen beyond the changes in the Software industry alone. BUSINESS WEEK, we can assume, as Rita Heimes suggested in her very gracious introduction, needs to hype its material in order to make people want to read below the first paragraph. But I think BUSINESS WEEK here is probably guilty of low blood pressure. Earlier this week in Brazil, the chief technology officer of the Microsoft Corporation, Craig Mundie, made a public speech, in which he said that my client the Free Software Foundation (the Free Software Foundation, and only the Free Software Foundation) was destroying the global Software industry. Now, The Free Software Foundation, which I have represented for ten years and on whose board I have the honor to sit, has an annual budget in the neighborhood of $750,000, and total assets slightly under two million dollars; it is supported entirely by donative contributions, mostly from individuals. The Microsoft ∗Eben Moglen is professor of law at Columbia University Law School. He serves without fee as General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation. You can read more of his writing at http://moglen.law.columbia.edu. These remarks were the keynote address at the University of Maine Law School’s Fourth Annual Technology and Law Conference, Portland, Maine, June 29, 2003.
-
Free Software Matters: Free Software or Open Source?
2000Co-Authors: Eben MoglenAbstract:Because use of Free Software is expanding so rapidly, most of the people now using it haven’t been part of the community for very long. So they are often puzzled by rhetorical disagreements familiar to the habitu´ e. What’s the difference between “Free Software” and “open source”? Why do some people seem to feel so strongly about it and is this apparent division a real problem for the future of the Software? It is very important that the two phrases do in fact denote the same object. Both the Free Software Foundation (which publishes the GNU General Public Licenses and holds assignments of copyright for protecting the Freedom of many essential components of Free Software, including GNU Emacs, GCC, GDB, and Glibc) and the Open Source Initiative (which has worked hard to publicize the conception of “open source” through its Open Source Definition) support and encourage Software that can be Freely modified and redistributed by its users. Why the two terms? The “open source” phrase stems from a decision taken in 1998 by a group of contributors to the Free Software movement to adopt a new strategy for assisting in the “corporate adoption” of the GPL and other Free Software licenses. These developers and supporters of Free Software believed that a more explicitly “pragmatic” approach to presenting its benefits—stressing the inevitable practical improvement in quality over ethical or moral arguments in favor of Free licensing—would result in wider corporate support and “mainstream” press coverage of the phenomenon. In one sense, then, “open source” was a phrase that entered the language lately, intended mostly for its public relations value, like a change of Eben Moglen is professor of law and legal history at Columbia University Law School. He serves without fee as General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation. You can read more of his writing at http://moglen.law.columbia.edu.
-
Anarchism triumphant: Free Software and the death of copyright
First Monday, 1999Co-Authors: Eben MoglenAbstract:The spread of the Linux operating system kernel has directed attention at the Free Software movement. This paper shows why Free Software, far from being a marginal participant in the commercial Software market, is the vital first step in the withering away of the intellectual property system.
Marie Coris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Free Software on the Market-Side: The Failure-Story of Free Software Services Companies in France
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2009Co-Authors: Marie CorisAbstract:Considering the French case of Free Software Services Companies (FSSCs), this paper analyses Free Software's market-oriented aspects. We try to answer a fundamental question for Free Software: does the Software industry have room for an alternative economic model based on the communities' ethic? Analysing FSSCs' competition with traditional IT Services Companies (ITSCs) and regarding the integration of Free Software in the ITSCs' product offer, we show how the Software sector's structures could explain both FSSCs' and ITSCs' recent changes.
-
Free Software's Market-Oriented Aspects:The Example of Free Software Service Companies in France
2006Co-Authors: Marie CorisAbstract:Considering the french case of Free Software Service Companies (FSSCs), this paper analyses Free Software’s market-oriented aspects. We try to answer a fundamental question for Free Software: is the Software industry have room for an alternative economic model based on the communities’ ethic? Analysing FSSCs’ competition with traditionnal IT Service Companies (ITSCs) and regarding the integration of Free Software in the ITSCs’ product offer, we show how the Software sector’s strutures could explain both FSSCs and ITSCs recent changes.
-
Free Software opportunities for developing countries (In French)
2005Co-Authors: Marie CorisAbstract:Our paper analyses the Free Software opportunities for developing economies. First we consider the adoption’s dimension. We show that they seem to be a credible option to support the computerization of these countries. Indeed, the Free Software could be an alternative to the piracy. Second we consider the importance of the argument of technological independence. In this perspective, we discuss the appropriatenesses of Free Software for the productive system of these countries.
Vipul Ved Prakash - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Orbiten Free Software survey
First Monday, 2000Co-Authors: Rishab Ghosh, Vipul Ved PrakashAbstract:Free Software is supposedly developed by a loosely organised "community" of programmers. However it has been quite unknown until now who, except for some well-known celebrities, belongs to this community, and more importantly how contributions are distributed. The authors present a first survey of Free Software authorship, with the emphasis not on building a census or even a "hall of fame", but on identifying patterns of concentration and distribution of contribution. The sample code size is not necessarily representative and there are several errors due to the automated and vast nature of the task of identifying and crediting authors. Nevertheless, comprehensive data is collated for the first time, and can be scrutinised in detail on the survey Web site.
Carlos Denner Dos Santos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The influence of sponsors on organizational structure of Free Software communities.
arXiv: Software Engineering, 2020Co-Authors: Daniel Esashika, Carlos Denner Dos SantosAbstract:Initially, Free Software communities are characterized by selfmanagement, however, they were also influenced by public and private organizations that identified potential gains in the use of the geographically distributed production model. In this context, this research aims to answer the following questions: Do sponsors influence the organizational structures of Free Software communities by promoting differences between sponsored and non-sponsored communities? What strategies are adopted by the sponsor to influence the organizational structure of Free Software communities? Two constructs are central to the study: organizational structure and sponsorship. For this research, we adopted case study methodology and three Free Software communities were studied. In the analysis of the results it was evidenced that sponsors influence decision making, definition of community key roles, and a formalization of norms. In turn, nonsponsored communities were characterized by the centralization and informality of the norms. We conclude that differences were identified in the organizational structure of sponsored and nonsponsored Free Software communities, and this differentiation was influenced by sponsors. In addition, it was possible to describe strategies and mechanisms used by sponsors to influence the community organizational structure.
-
MEDES - The influence of sponsors on organizational structure of Free Software communities
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Management of Digital EcoSystems, 2017Co-Authors: Daniel Esashika, Carlos Denner Dos SantosAbstract:Initially, Free Software communities are characterized by self-management, however, they were also influenced by public and private organizations that identified potential gains in the use of the geographically distributed production model. In this context, this research aims to answer the following questions: Do sponsors influence the organizational structures of Free Software communities by promoting differences between sponsored and non-sponsored communities? What strategies are adopted by the sponsor to influence the organizational structure of Free Software communities? Two constructs are central to the study: organizational structure and sponsorship. For this research, we adopted case study methodology and three Free Software communities were studied. In the analysis of the results it was evidenced that sponsors influence decision making, definition of community key roles, and a formalization of norms. In turn, non-sponsored communities were characterized by the centralization and informality of the norms. We conclude that differences were identified in the organizational structure of sponsored and non-sponsored Free Software communities, and this differentiation was influenced by sponsors. In addition, it was possible to describe strategies and mechanisms used by sponsors to influence the community organizational structure.
-
a study of the relationships between source code metrics and attractiveness in Free Software projects
Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, 2010Co-Authors: Paulo Meirelles, Carlos Denner Dos Santos, Joao Marcelo De Queiroz Miranda, Fabio Kon, Antonio Terceiro, Christina ChavezAbstract:A significant number of Free Software projects has been widely used and considered successful. However, there is an even larger number of them that cannot overcome the initial step towards building an active community of users and developers. In this study, we investigated whether there are relationships between source code metrics and attractiveness, i.e., the ability of a project to attract users and developers. To verify these relationships, we analyzed 6,773 Free Software projects from the SourceForge.net repository. The results indicated that attractiveness is indeed correlated to some source code metrics. This suggests that measurable attributes of the project source code somehow affect the decision to contribute and adopt a Free Software project. The findings described in this study show that it is relevant for project leaders to monitor source code quality, most specifically a few objective metrics, since these can have a positive influence in their chances of forming a community of contributors and users around the Software, enabling further enhancement in its quality.
