We can take example of Linux Operating Systems. It has been adopted by many people as their desktop operating system and even by mobile handset manufacturers. They has been a continous change in Linux as each contributer contributes to it over the time passes. As stastics shows there is a new release of Linux after every three months. Hence in OpenSource, nobody is working for free. The value gained by each contributer in enormous as compare to their investment. People choose working with Opensource software for the following reasons: Firstly, opensource programmers may improve their performance rather than reducing it in paid work. Second, the programmer may find their pleasure in choosing opensource than a routine task set by an employer. Third, in a broad way, opensource contributions may lead to future job offers, shares in commercial opensource-based companies and last but not the least ego gratification from peer recognition. . 
In this paper we have explained why it is an opportune time to consider OSS ERP packages as a good alternative to commercial ERP solutions. We have investigated the current status of OSS ERP packages by surveying ERP projects on SourceForge.net, a large opensource software repository. We have observed both unexpected as well expected findings. Certainly, many developers and users are interested in this category of software for various reasons, e.g., potential big dotcom opportunities, improving their programming skills, exploitation of the projects at their corporate sites. Except for a very small number of projects, these projects have failed to produce quality software in which business users can trust based on the low volume of software produced and its low take-up determined by downloads. Learning lessons
ERP systems have received much attention in the recent years. ERPs are often defined as standardized packaged software designed to integrate an organization’s entire value chain (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2004; Rolland and Prakash, 2000). Wier et al. (2007) argue that ERPs aim to integrate business processes and ICT into a synchronized suite of procedures, applications and metrics which goes over firms’ boundaries. Kumar and van Hillegersberg (2000) say ERPs originated in the manufacturing industry, and development of the first generation ERPs was an inside-out process, changing from standard inventory control packages, to material requirements planning, material resources planning and then expanding to support the entire organization (second generation ERPs). This evolved software package is described as the next generation ERP, labeled as ERP II, which according to Møller (2005), could be described as next generation enterprise systems. This development has increased the complexity both when it comes to usage as well as development of ERPs. The complexity comes from the fact that ERPs are systems that are supposed to integrate the organization – both inter-organizationally as well as intra-organizationally – and its business process in a one suite package (Koch, 2001). This impacts what stakeholders there are in an ERP value-chain (Ifinedo and Nahar, 2007; Somers and Nelson, 2004) and also how these different stakeholders receive competitive advantage from ERPs. It can be clearly argued that an organization no longer receives competitive advantage by just implementing an ERP (Karimi et al., 2007; Kocakulah et al., 2006). One reason could be that ERPs focus on good (unfortunately, often incorrectly called “best”) practices. Since opensource ERPs seem to provide better possibilities for customization, it could be asked if an organization adopts opensource ERPs in order to differentiate from competitors.
Several studies have been undertaken to measure the growth and evolution of individual opensource software projects    . Most of these studies are exemplary, focusing on a few selected projects only. The exception is Koch’s work, which uses a large sample (>4000 projects) to determine overall growth patterns in opensource projects, concluding that polynomial growth patterns provide good mod- els for these projects  . Such work is mostly motivated by trying to understand how individual opensource projects grow and evolve.
There is a legal answer and a political answer and, for this particular question, the political answer is far more significant. Opensource must be a collaborative process. Any licensing change that is made by fiat is likely to result in a fracture of the community. A project may be left without some of its key con- tributors. Customers will face diverging product development strategies by different groups of developers, each competing for attention and support. Entire product lines may die.
Some commercial managed file transfer solutions claiming to have UDP acceleration have integrated one of those opensource projects into their core file transfer technology. These solutions will inherit the strengths but also the weaknesses of the opensource project. FileCatalyst has developed its own UDP based protocol written from the ground up, and does not include any code from opensource UDP technology.
These two areas are often overlooked or vary widely in the opensource development process. Opensource contributors tend to be more interested in coding than documenting or testing. This is probably due to the nature of opensource that tries to replace the formal testing process with “many eyeballs” effect in eliminating the bugs. Also, adding comments in the source code is often perceived as sufficient for documentation. There has been some effort in addressing the problem of lack of documentation (e.g. the Linux Documentation Project  and Mozilla Developer Documentation web page ), but this is still a rarity for smaller opensource projects. We have yet to find some sort of testing strategies for opensource projects. They might exist, but implicitly and not open to the outside the project.
This thesis explores the reasons behind the poor level of adoption of opensource web GIS software, and whether it is due to poor awareness about opensource concepts or due to technical deficiencies in the opensource tools. The research was done in 2 major phases; the first phase involved conducting surveys to measure the awareness and attitudes towards opensource. The surveys examined three categories of people involved in the IT industry, namely: decision makers, software developers, and end users. The measurement of awareness was done by developing an Awareness Indicator and a Sentiment Indicator for each category. These indicators were developed by the author during the course of the study in order to provide a measurable and descriptive indication of the results. The second phase involved performing a comparative analysis between MapServer a leading opensource web GIS tool, and three of the leading proprietary web GIS software, namely: ESRI’s ArcIMS, Intergraph’s GeoMedia WebMap, and MapInfo’s MapXtreme.
OSSCOM 2015 will focus on the perspective of opensource software adoption as alternative solutions to proprietary software and will point out how specialized OSS enterprises can be developed from within universities to integrate creativity, entrepreneurship, and competitiveness and build sustainable OSS industry.
This brief examination of the international legal framework shows that the contribution of farmers to food security and conservation of agricultural biodiversity has been acknowl- edged, at least in the realm of international environmental law, and legal concepts have been developed to reflect this recognition. However, the complexity of the legal framework, the unclear relationship between international environmental and international IP law, and lack of enforceability of international environmental law, in combination with the power of the com- mercial seed sector, put both farmers and national governments wishing to protect farmers’ rights in a vulnerable position. In addition, patent expansion and market concentration, as well as funding constraints, put public agricultural research at risk. The questions thus re- main. How can farmers’ and public researchers’ contribution to global food security be sup- ported? And how can it be defended against the obstacles posed by IPRs and other tools of the commercial seed sector? Looking for imaginative solutions, certain initiatives have start- ed experimenting with novel tools inspired from developments in the IT sector, including opensource seeds and technologies.
For all of the rhetoric, all of the debate, it is indisputable that opensource software is playing an increasingly important and often mission critical role within successful IT organizations all over the globe. While no panacea, opensource can provide compelling economic and technical benefits to businesses and other organizations constantly under pressure to eke more performance out of their technology operations for less money. While "vendor relationship management" models for traditional, non-opensource software providers are well understood and tested, far less so are the techniques for successfully managing relationships with opensource communities and vendors. This paper discusses several key differences between closed and opensource software vendor management, providing advice for managing your deployments and investments in opensource technologies.
OpenLogic is a leading provider of enterprise opensource solutions for the cloud and the data center. OpenLogic helps hundreds of leading enterprise across a wide range of industries to safely acquire, support, and control opensource software. OpenLogic offers certification, commercial-grade technical support and indemnification for 600 opensource packages backed by the OpenLogic Expert Community. OpenLogic also offers CloudSwing, a complete open PaaS solution for enterprises seeking to deploy applications and 31. Email communication: Under what circumstances can employees communicate with OSS communities (with company attribution)?
Here are different types of models by the help of which we can access the quality of different opensource software. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) are the two very common quality systems in opensource software industry. This document contains the major characteristics of CMMI and ISO, how they work, why they are developed and what are the differences among them. There are some pros and cons of each model especially in terms of quality systems which are also focused in this document. I discussed three major process areas of CMMI along with their benefit and at the end there is general discussion about the quality systems.
40.6% of organizations that are considering opensource clouds appear to be committed to the use of best of breed com- ponents from different vendors. While this is consistent with the path the early adopters took, these organizations don’t seem to be paying enough attention to converged infrastructure/integrated infrastructure offerings. Since slightly over 23% are committing to a single vendor solution, it is likely that some of these organizations will actually move towards adopting converged infrastructure for simplicity and speed as their deployments begin.
The "opensource" label came out of a strategy session held in Palo Alto in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator (as Mozilla). A group of individuals at the session included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, John Hall, Sam Ockman, Christine Peterson and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word "free" in English. The 'opensource' movement is generally thought to have begun with this strategy session. Many people, nevertheless, claimed that the birth of the Internet, since 1969, started the opensource movement, while others do not distinguish between opensource and free software movements.
• Freedesktop.org is opensource / open discussion software projects working on interoperability and shared technology for X Window System desktops. The most famous X desktops are GNOME and KDE, but developers working on any Linux/UNIX GUI technology are welcome to participate. freedesktop.org is building a base platform for desktop software on Linux and UNIX. The elements of this platform have become the backend for higher- level application-visible APIs such as Qt, GTK+, XUL, VCL, WINE, GNOME, and KDE. The base platform is both software and standards ii . Others are: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard iii , Austin Common Standards Revision Group iv and Debian Policy Manual v
Ericsson has formed an organization called the Linux Group to deliver and support Linux distributions for a variety of its products. An inherent danger of working with a distribu- tion of open-source software is that one can all too easily end up maintaining a “propri- etary” version of one or more distributions. By concentrating the work into a single or- ganization, Ericsson hopes to reduce this risk. Even so, there is still the danger of creating vast overhead if development moves away
The International OpenSource Network (IOSN) is an initiative of APDIP and supported by the International Development Research Centre of Canada. IOSN is a Centre of Excellence for Free/ OpenSource Software (FOSS), Open Content and Open Standards in the Asia-Pacific region. It is a network with a small secretariat based at the UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok and three centres of excellence – IOSN ASEAN+3, IOSN PIC (Pacific Island Countries), and IOSN South Asia, based in Manila, Suva and Chennai respectively. IOSN provides policy and technical advice on FOSS to governments, civil society and the private sector. It produces FOSS awareness and training materials and distributes them under open content licenses. It also organizes awareness raising, training, research and networking initiatives to assist countries in developing a pool of human resources skilled in the use and development of FOSS. IOSN works primarily through its web portal www.iosn.net that is collectively managed by the FOSS community. The web portal serves as a clearinghouse and a platform for knowledge sharing and collaborations.
The following questions represent components of a comprehensive opensource policy. Each question has several policy choices listed below. Your organization can build its opensource policy by answering the questions and formulating language expressing its choices in a policy statement. Examples of how policy choices can be expressed as policy statements are given in Question 1.