Choosing The Right Open Source Project Scott Leslie, Edutools.info SFU, July 28, 2005
Nov 30, 2014
Choosing The Right Open Source Project
Scott Leslie, Edutools.info
SFU, July 28, 2005
You are here?
Outer Hebrides?
The Hype
• Depending on who you ask Open Source
represents
• Greatest thing since sliced bread
• The cure to all your ills
• The Next ‘Insanely Great’ Thing
• Salvation
• The ONLY Way Forward
• A threat to the Canadian way of life
Promises of Open Source
• Get the solution you want; greater pedagogical
flexibility
• Avoid Vendor Lock-in
• No Perpetual License Costs
• Control over Product Development/Release Cycle
• Increase Operating System and Other Platform
Flexibility
• Non-Proprietary/Open Standards
What this Presentation Isn’t• Not a presentation on the value of adopting open
source• For some good work in this regard refer to
• Chris Coppola, “Will Open Source Unlock the Potential of eLearning?” http://www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id=10299&typeid=155
• Randy Metcalfe, “Software Choice: Decision Making in a Mixed Economy,” http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/metcalfe/
• Patricia Gertz, “Open Your Eyes: Open Architecture, Open Source, Open Projects,” http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=666&ID=MAC0510&bhcp=1
• Coppola and Neely, “Open source - opens learning,” http://www.opensourcesummit.org/open-source-200408.pdf
What this presentation is
• ‘Open Source’ is a moniker applied to a HUGE variety of
software projects
• Not all Open Source projects are equally suitable to
every institution
• Details an effort to develop a framework to understand
OS project suitability in relation to institutional capacities
• Want to help people in choosing the right/appropriate OS
projects
About Edutools – http://www.edutools.info
• Site dedicated to assisting decision makers in higher education
• Past claim to fame the CMS comparison site
• Originated with BC-developed ‘Landonline’ site
• Redeveloped in 2001-2 with funding from Hewlett foundation
• Scope expanded to include comparative analysis of e-learning policies & other student service technologies, and recently Learning Object Repository technology
Defining Open Source
• Fundamental to definitions of Open Source are a set of freedoms enabled by a software license
• Freedom to• View and learn from source code• Distribute copies• Use the software for any purpose• Modify and Share the modifications
• Cf. OSI’s Definition of ‘Open Source’ - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Definition very much centers around freedoms of what you can do with the code
BUT…
The irony is that…
OPEN SOURCE CODE
-
OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY
=
Conventional, in-house, ad hoc legacy software
Development/Acquisition Evolution
BUY
SHAREBUILD
VS.
BUY
VS.
3rd Try…
Open Source can be defined as always having
the right to ‘fork’ the source code
BUT
Exercising that right to ‘Fork’ is fraught with
challenges and often not desirable
For the most part, part of the definition is that ongoing participation is VOLUNTARY
Suitability = Maturity vs. Capability
Organization’s Capability for Development
‘Maturity’ of Project / Community
‘Freeloading’Very Mature
Immature
Low High
ProjectOriginator
Real Risk of Failure
Low Risk Decisions
OS ‘Sweet Spot’What makes OS communities thrive
Group Qualities of Organizations and Projects around…
• Initial Development
• Deployment and Integration
• Ongoing Maintenance and Support
• Overall Institutional or Project Attributes
DevelopmentOrganizational Factors• Project-based Developer
Resources• experience with specific
technologies• willingness to learn; interest in
specific technologies under consideration
• willingness of institution to support learning through development
• Existing Software Development Process and Environment
Project Factors• Age of project• Number of releases• Project Reputation (for
stability, rapidity of bug fixes)• Number of existing
developers• extent to which OS
development roles are explicit and filled
• Activity within the development community, forums and mailing lists
Deployment and IntegrationOrganizational Factors• Existing framework,
architecture or e-learning infrastructure into which new project must fit• existing open source
components in use• exiting commercial
components in use
Project Factors• Dependencies/
Standards• open source
dependencies• commercial dependencies• support of open standards• existence within a larger
suite of OS applications or architecture
• Well documented API • 3rd party support for
deployment
Ongoing Maintenance and Support
Organizational Factors• Ongoing Developer
Resources• Institutional Support
Structures• Existing Bug tracking, testing
and fixing processes• Institutional Tolerance for
Beta Products
Project Factors• Documented procedure for
becoming a new developer• Developer documentation /
support community• Explicit and implicit
developer education and socialization paths
• End-user documentation / support community
• 3rd party support providers / vendors
Overall Institutional or Project Attributes
Organizational Factors• Institution Type/Size• Preferred Project Management
Style• Past Experience with Open Source
projects• History of being risk takers or risk
adverse
• Related Institutional Networks and affiliations
• Desire to commercialize or otherwise spin off derivative or related works
Project FactorsGovernance Model• One guiding leader (cf. Moodle) • Hierarchical with different captains• Inner circle (cf. Sakai, http://
kb.indiana.edu/data/anlz.html?cust=731846.98763.30) • None?• others…Licensing Model• BSD-like• GPL-like• Apache, Linux-like• Educational Community License• others… (cf. http://www.opensource.org
/licenses/)
Open source “market share”
Suitability = Maturity vs. Capability
Organization’s Capability for Development
‘Maturity’ of Project / Community
Very Mature
Immature
Low High
Real Risk of Failure
#1
“Low Risk Choice”
#2
“Adoption, not adaptation”
#3 “Major Boost”#4 “Good Luck!”
Goal of Decision Tool
• Provide a means of self-identification for institutional decision makers to recognize their capabilities and the projects they are well suited to
• Identify areas of likely risk in choosing particular kinds of projects in an effort to address them before the projects are engaged
Final Thoughts
• Beyond this question of ‘suitability’ there do seem to be some essential qualities of OS aligned with higher ed• in relying on local innovation rather than market forces to
drive progress, it fosters diversity / increases pedagogical innovation
• often results in increased learning for staff within institution• “The collaborative nature of open source has a strong
cultural affinity to higher education and its mission to advance and share knowledge for the greater public good” Coppola, http://www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id=10299&typeid=155