Open-source software assessment methodologies

Several methods have been created to define an assessment process for free/open-source software. Some focus on some aspects like the maturity, the durability and the strategy of the organisation around the open-source project itself. Other methodologies add functional aspects to the assessment process.

Existing methodologies There are more than 20 different OSS evaluation methods.Klaas-Jan Stol, Muhammad Ali Babar. "A Comparison Framework for Open Source Software Evaluation Methods" published in OSS 2010 proceedings. IFIP AICT vol. 319, pp. 389-394. Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) from Capgemini Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) from Navica Open Source Maturity Model (OSSMM) by Woods and GulianiWoods, D., Guliani, G.: Open Source for the Enterprise: Managing Risks Reaping Rewards. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2005) Methodology of Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS) Open Business Readiness Rating (OpenBRR) Open Business Quality Rating (OpenBQR) QualiPSo QualiPSo Model for Open Source Software Trustworthiness (MOSST)V. Del Bianco, L. Lavazza, S. Morasca, D. Taibi and D. Tosi.: Quality of Open Source Software: The QualiPSo Trustworthiness Model. In: proc. 5th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference on Open Source Systems, OSS 2009, Skövde, Sweden, June 3–6, 2009. ProceedingsV. Del Bianco, L. Lavazza, S. Morasca, D. Taibi and D. Tosi.: The QualiSPo approach to OSS product quality evaluation. ACM/IEEE, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) – Colocated with ICSE, 2010 Towards A Trustworthiness Model For Open Source Software: How to evaluate Open Source SoftwareD.Taibi: Towards a trustworthiness model for Open Source Software:How to evaluate Open Source Software. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. 2010. QualOSS – Quality of Open Source Evaluation Framework for Open Source SoftwareKoponen, T., Hotti, V.: Evaluation framework for open source software. In: Proc. Software Engineering and Practice (SERP), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, June 21–24 (2004) A Quality Model for OSS SelectionSung, W.J., Kim, J.H., Rhew, S.Y.: A Quality Model for Open Source Software Selec- tion. In: Proc. Sixth International Conference on Advanced Language Processing and Web Information Technology, Luoyang, Henan, China, pp. 515–519 (2007) Atos Origin Method for Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software (QSOS)Atos Origin: Method for Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS) version 1.6, Technical Report (2006) Observatory for Innovation and Technological transfer on Open Source software (OITOS)Cabano, M., Monti, C., Piancastelli, G.: Context-Dependent * Evaluation Methodology for Open Source Software. In: Proc. Third IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS 2007), Limerick, Ireland, pp. 301–306 (2007) Framework for OS Critical Systems Evaluation (FOCSE)Ardagna, C.A., Damiani, E., Frati, F.: FOCSE: An OWA-based Evaluation Framework for OS Adoption in Critical Environments. In: Proc. Third IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference on Open Source Systems, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 3–16 (2007)

Comparison

Comparison criteria Stol and Babar have proposed a comparison framework for OSS evaluation methods. Their framework lists criteria in four categories: criteria related to the context in which the method is to be used, the user of the method, the process of the method, and the evaluation of the method (e.g., its validity and maturity stage).

The comparison presented below is based on the following (alternative set of) criteria: Seniority : the methodology birth date. Original authors/sponsors : original methodology authors and sponsoring entity (if any) License : Distribution and usage license for the methodology and the resulting assessments Assessment model : Detail levels : several levels of details or assessment granularity Predefined criteria : the methodology provides some predefined criteria Technical/functional criteria : the methodology permits the use of domain specific criteria based on technical information or features Scoring model : Scoring scale by criterion Iterative process : the assessment can be performed and refined using several steps improving the level of details Criteria weighting : it is possible to apply weighting on the assessed criteria as part of the methodology scoring model Comparison : the comparison process is defined by the methodology

Comparison chart Criteria OSMM Capgemini OSMM Navica QSOS OpenBRR OpenBQR OpenSource Maturity ModelSeniority200320042004200520072008Original authors/sponsorsCapgeminiNavicasoftAtos OriginCarnegie Mellon Silicon Valley, SpikeSource, O'Reilly, IntelUniversity of InsubriaQualiPSo project, EU commissionLicenseNon-free license, but authorised distributionAssessment models licensed under the Academic Free LicenseMethodology and assessments results licensed under the GNU Free Documentation LicenseAssessments results licensed under a Creative Commons license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 LicenseAssessment model Practical Practical Practical Scientific Practical ScientificDetail levels2 axes on 2 levels3 levels3 levels or more (functional grids)2 levels3 levels 3 levelsPredefined criteriaYesYesYesYesYesYesTechnical/functional criteriaNoNoYesYesYesYesScoring modelFlexibleFlexibleStrictFlexibleFlexibleFlexibleScoring scale by criterion1 to 51 to 100 to 21 to 51 to 51 to 4Iterative processNoNoYesYesYesYesCriteria weightingYesYesYesYesYesYesComparisonYesNoYesNoYesNo

Open-source software assessment methodologies

Bron en licentie