《Linux基金会：2023衡量开源的经济价值-调查与初步分析报告（英文版）（45页）.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Linux基金会：2023衡量开源的经济价值-调查与初步分析报告（英文版）（45页）.pdf（45页珍藏版）》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。

1、Henry Chesbrough,Luiss University and UC BerkeleyForeword by Irving Wladawsky-Berger,MIT Sloan School of ManagementMeasuring the Economic Value of Open SourceA Survey and a Preliminary AnalysisMarch 2023Measuring the Economic Value of Open SourceCopyright 2023 The Linux Foundation|March 2023.This re

2、port is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.Respondents rate these benefits of open source the highest:Cost saving Faster development speed Open standards and interoperability Almost 2/3 of respondents report that the benefits of open source

3、 exceed the costs.The ratio of benefits to costs appears to be rising for nearly half of respondents.Most respondents believe it costs significantly less money to use OSSthan to provide the software functionality themselves.The median respondents report that the economic value of OSS is 1 to 2 times

4、 the cost of its use.31%of respondents reported that paying for equivalent software functionality would incur 4X the cost of OSS.3MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAbstract and keywordsOpen source technologies,including the ubiquitous Linux operating system,are free to use,and consequently,

5、challenging to value in economic terms.While the reasons for contributors to offer code contributions have been extensively studied,the reasons for using open source,and the value of that use,have received less attention.Professor Henry Chesbrough conducted a survey of open source adoption with supp

6、ort from the Linux Foundation.This White Paper discusses the main results of the survey and what the perceived economic value of open source software(OSS)is to those who responded to the survey.Our sample tilts toward Fortune 500 firms.Results show that open source is,indeed,valuable,not only in its

7、elf but also in comparison with alternative technologies that firms could employ instead of open source.Yet its perceived value varies between firms,and it is likely that these differences derive from the practices employed by firms who utilize OSS,particularly whether they have extensive experience

8、 with its use,and how actively they contribute to open source initiatives.Keywords:open source software,Linux foundation,valuation of open source,adoption of open source software“Software is eating the world.”MARC ANDREESSEN,CO-FOUNDER AND PARTNER,ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ,2011“Most of that software is op

9、en source.”JIM ZEMLIN,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,LINUX FOUNDATION,2022ContentsForeword.5Origins of OSS.6Previous research on the value of OSS.7The survey to measure the economic value of OSS.8Constructing the survey sample.9Top-line survey results.10Analysis of survey results and discussion.15Conclusion.17R

10、eferences.18Appendix.20Section A:Position of the person answering the questionnaire.20Section B:Basic information about your organization.20Section C:Involvement in Open Source Communities.28Acknowledgements.43About the author .43Endnotes.445MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEForewordOnce mo

11、stly used by research,the Internet,supercomputing,and hacker communities,open source software(OSS)has succeeded beyond our most ambitious expectations.This success is most apparent when looking at the evolution of the Linux Foundation(LF).Initially founded about two decades ago as the Open Source De

12、velopment Lab by a small number of companies in order to support the continued development of Linux and expand its adoption by mainstream business communities,the LF now has over 1,500 members and is home to hundreds of open source projects,some focused on horizontal technologies and others on indus

13、try verticals.According to LF estimates,its sponsored projects have developed over 1 billion lines of open source code that support a significant percentage of the worlds mission-critical infrastructures,and the number is significantly higher if we include the contributions of other open source comm

14、unities,such as the Apache Software Foundation.While the supply side of OSS has been extensively studied and quantified,we know much less about the demand side,that is,its value to the many institutions that use OSS.Despite the wide adoption of OSS by firms and industries around the world,we dont re

15、ally understand,nor are we able to quantify,its overall economic value.How did organizations derive benefits,and what were the primary costs of using or contributing to OSS?Whats the overall benefitcost ratio?If not able to use OSS in a project,what would have been the next-best alternatives,and how

16、 much would they have cost?After determining that it was important to get answers to these and other questions,the LF sponsored a study led by UC Berkeley professor Henry Chesbrougha pioneer in the study of open inno-vation,having written four books and many articles on the subject.Chesbrough and hi

17、s collaborators devised and conducted a survey to uncover the reasons that led companies to embrace OSS.This White Paper explains the methodology used in the survey and discusses its major findingsthe highlights are in the body of the paper,and the details are in the Appendix.I found it to be quite

18、interesting,not only because of its findings but because the paper carefully explains how difficult it is to quantify the demand side of open source by asking questions in the survey,where the execu-tives that answered the survey may only have somewhat vague,qualitative answers to the questions your

19、e asking them.This point highlights that,even though Mark Andreessens 2011 quip that“software is eating the world”is far more true in 2022 than it was in 2011,we still lack the proper methodologies and tools to quantify the overall impact of software on productivity and on the economy in general.It

20、reminds me that this is also the case with services.As I wrote on my blog a few weeks ago,“Despite being such a large portion of GDP and jobs around the world,the intrinsic nature of services remains vague,hidden from view in plain sightas if they were a kind ofdark matter.Its easier to define the s

21、ervices sector by what it doesnt include:its not agriculture or fishing,and its not manufacturing,construction,or mining.Just about every other job is in services.”Beyond OSS,something similar seems to be the case with software in general.Despite not just eating but practicallydevouring the world,th

22、e economic value of software is hard to quantify because,like services,its lack of physicality makes it difficult to get concrete,quantitative answers to survey questions.We hope that you will find the White Paper to be an important step in helping you understand the economic value underlying the gr

23、owth of open source adoption around the world.Irving Wladawsky-Berger Research Affiliate,MIT Sloan School of Management6MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEOrigins of OSS1The development of OSS goes back to the early days of the computer industry.The OSS movements roots are in two computing p

24、rojects in the 1970s and 1980s.Incubated on univer-sity campuses,both embodied the“hackers”ethos of using collaboration to build a better product.The first was UNIX,created initially by AT&Ts Bell Labs but then transferred to computer science researchers at the University of California at Berkeley a

25、nd renamed the Berkeley Software Distribution(BSD)operating system.The second was GNU,the brainchild of Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT)programmer Richard Stallman.Both projects were complete operating systems,meaning that they were suites of applications or programs that could operate in

26、concert on a single computer.While BSD was the first truly open source project,GNU was the project that,more than any other,set the rules of the open source game.The intense secrecy with which software-developing companies guarded their often buggy,inef-fective products,making it impossible for user

27、s to help improve them,galvanized Stallman to create GNU.So,at GNU,Stallman decided to make the projects source code available to everyone.To Stallman,free software entailed four specific freedoms:the freedom to run a program,the freedom to alter it(which required access to its source code),the free

28、dom to make copies of it and either give them away or sell them,and the freedom to dissemi-nate altered versions of the program.2 These four freedoms,integral to the identity of GNU,would become standard in the OSS industry.So would the guard-rails Stallman set up to govern GNUs developers.As GNU gr

29、ew,Stallman began to outsource approval discretion over code modi-fications to a hierarchy of super-developers called“maintainers,”so designated based on the frequency and quality of their contri-butions.Stallman himself sat on top of the pyramid,occupying the role unofficially termed BDFL(“benevole

30、nt dictator for life”).Linus Torvalds,the developer who created the Linux kernel in 1992,enjoyed similar BDFL status in the Linux developer commu-nity.To make this practice of open collaboration more accessible to business,in February 1998,Christine Peterson coined the term“open source,”a term that

31、was quickly adopted by others(Barron,2018).Linux soon surpassed both BSD Unix and GNU,scaling worldwide,in part because of its embrace by the business commu-nity.Other open source projects also took off at this time,and OSS became more and more prevalent in software development projects.3Linux grew

32、to become the innovators operating system,where users could propose desired features at any time.4 Developers no longer had to wait for commercial operating systems to(hopefully)roll out new or improved features at a schedule of their choosing.The open and innovative process for Linux kernel develop

33、ment became a methodology for developing and sustaining technolo-gies of many kinds.In the process,a thriving community has come together as a federation of unique open source projects,known as the Linux Foundation(LF).The LF applies its open source gover-nance practices to many other technical area

34、s now,even ones where there is no Linux code involved.While OSS and open source hardware and standards are free to use,they are not completely free in terms of the total cost of ownership.Users of OSS incur costs to install and maintain the code,and these costs recur whenever a major update or upgra

35、de to the software has occurred.On the supply side,organizations such as the LF spend time,intellectual resources,and other inputs to propose new features and fix bugs in code bases,often volun-teering their time to do so.Contributors also produce open source project documentation,implement governan

36、ce models,manage intellectual property,perform translations,organize community events,and so on.57MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEPrevious research on the value of OSSResearch on the management of OSS goes back more than two decades now.The early work of scholars,including Eric von Hippel

37、,Georg von Krogh,Josh Lerner,and Jean Tirole,has helped to shape scholars understanding of OSS for a generation.These scholars studied the phenomenon of OSS from the perspective of those who contribute code to OSS without receiving monetary compensation for doing so.Much has been learned as a result

38、.Contributors have several motivations for contributing code,including their own direct use of the code(von Hippel,2005),signaling their coding capability(Lerner and Tirole,2002),and belonging to a community of practice(von Krogh et al.,2012).At the same time,OSS as a phenomenon has significantly tr

39、an-scended its modest beginnings in hacker communities and computer science departments(Fitzgerald,2006).Today,OSS can be found in a myriad of uses,including automotive(Muller-Seitz and Reger,2010),cybersecurity(Lin et al.,2020),telecommu-nications(Naudts et al.,2016),making movies,and banking and f

40、inance(Dwyer,2015).It enables startups and small and medium businesses to reduce costs and increase speed to market(European Commission et al.,2021;Gruber and Henkel,2006).Large companies that contended that OSS was a“cancer”20 years ago now embrace OSS(Neus and Scherf,2005;Vitharana et al.,2010).A

41、very recent structured literature review of OSS in the management domain can be found in Cao and Chesbrough(2022).Most of the research on OSS has taken advantage of the fact that the repositories of OSS are available to the public,including academic scholars.However,if one wishes to measure the econ

42、omic value of OSS,it is not enough to observe the large and growing number of OSS projects and code commits to those projects.One must also examine how the individual or organi-zation that employed OSS used the software.Yet these actions are not observable to the public.Instead,one must construct wa

43、ys to probe those actors to uncover the ways in which they use OSS.Two recent studies have addressed the“demand side”of OSS adoption,both through the use of surveys.One study utilizes a 10-year survey of IT usage from 2000 to 2009,including OSS,and finds a productivity benefit of using OSS(Nagle,201

44、9).However,this benefit requires that the OSS user possesses complementary capabilities,otherwise the benefit of using OSS is insignificant.A very recent survey of OSS usage within the European Union also found strong evidence of benefits for OSS adoption(European Commission,2021),with a benefitcost

45、 ratio of 4:1.This result came from a sample where small and medium enterprises were the dominant respondents(75%)to the sample,while large firms were underrepresented in the results.8MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEThe survey to measure the economic value of OSSMany have likened the open

46、 source community to a kind of commons,a public resource that is open to all yet different in scope and opportunity from many resource commons because using the resource does not exclude or impair the use of that resource by others.Indeed,if those other users make additional code contri-butions and

47、help to maintain the code over time,their use may enhance the value of the resource.6 This White Paper,however,took a survey approach to measuring the private value of using OSS by individual firms,following the work of Nagle(2019)and the recent study by the European Commission(2021).The use of a su

48、rvey ascertained the costs and benefits of OSS to individual organiza-tions as they develop software for projects.This approach overlooks the societal benefits of OSS and is therefore a more conservative approach to estimating the value of OSS in comparison with the nature pricing methodology employ

49、ed by environmental advocates.The benefit of this survey approach,though,is that it is mostly individual people and organizations who make decisions with regard to the use of OSS as they develop projects.The decision of whether and when to employ OSS hinges on organizations perceived private benefit

50、s and costs,excluding societal benefits.Hence,findings from this survey should be directly relevant to those individuals and organizations seeking to develop software for new project activities.By contrast,policymakers evaluating whether and how much to support OSS might want to consider a method th

51、at explicitly incorporates societal benefits into the question of its value.We sought to measure the perceived value of OSS in two ways in the survey:First,we probed the costs and the benefits of OSS in general within that organization as perceived by the respondent.We offered several prompts for po

52、ssible costs and several prompts for possible benefits.We further allowed respondents to write in additional cost or benefit attributes that the survey might have overlooked.We then asked how rapidly the costs were growing over time,how rapidly the benefits were growing over time,and how the ratio o

53、f costs to benefits was changing over time.Second,we asked respondents to think of a major project that had recently been completed that included OSS.For that specific project,we inquired about what the alternative approach to achieving the project would have been absent the ability to use OSS and w

54、hat that would have cost.We made the choice to focus part of the survey on a recently completed project to provide a more robust grounding for answering a series of rather detailed questions.By asking for such a project,we followed the methodology utilized recently by Cohen et al.(2019)in their empi

55、rical survey of innovation activ-ities.This approach assumes that the respondent will provide more reliable estimates for a specific project than they would for the organization overall.It further assumes that the project selected is representative of projects underway within the organization.Given

56、the limitations of probing respondents perceptions of costs and benefits,we also chose to triangulate the respon-dents estimates by probing three aspects of valuing OSS in use.First,we wanted to ascertain the cost of using OSS and set that as the baseline for what follows.Second,we wanted to examine

57、 the best available alternative solution if OSS was not avail-able.Usually,this was a commercial piece of software,which would include installation,service,and support over time.And third,we wanted to know what it would have cost to build the solution internally instead,keeping in mind that this int

58、ernal code would also require installing,servicing,and updating over time.Asking about costs and benefits through these three alternate 9MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEperspectives aims to broaden the respondents consideration of value and establishes a range of value estimates from thos

59、e respondents.The survey and its responses are available in full in the Appendix to this White Paper.The survey starts with contextual informa-tion about the respondent and his/her role within the organization along with demographic information about that organization.To elicit information about the

60、 value of OSS,we chose to probe both the perceived costs and the perceived benefits of OSS.We were careful to make the scales for the respondents answers completely neutral so that we did not prejudge their answers.We pretested the survey with members of the Linux Foundation Research Advisory Board.

61、This allowed us to clarify the phrasing of our questions and ensure that the responses received were consis-tent with the objectives of the survey.Even in this pretest group,who are highly engaged in OSS projects and activities,there were certain questions that some of our respondents did not know h

62、ow to answer.This was particularly true for questions regarding the size of the code base for a specific project and what proportion of that code base was built from OSS.This pattern was also observed later in our larger sample.Constructing the survey sampleEarly in this project,we were fortunate en

63、ough to receive a briefing from the research team that organized a survey of OSS adoption in the E.U.(European Commission,2021).One surprising finding from that work was that most of the survey respondents were small and medium enterprises(SMEs).Because that survey had covered well the responses of

64、SMEs to open source,we chose to focus this survey and its survey sample on larger companies.7To that end,we purchased a list of the CIOs and IT managers of Fortune 500 companies in the U.S.We supplemented that list with companies already engaged with the Linux Foundation as well as companies who bel

65、onged to the industry group called the Berkeley Innovation Forum.Finally,the individual contacts on the authors LinkedIn page were also added to the sample.Because of this sampling approach,we cannot claim that our survey sample is statistically representative of the Fortune 500.However,we were able

66、 to obtain 439 usable responses to the survey,so the sample does include many,if not most,of the Fortune 500.However,the number of usable responses to some of the survey questions was more limited,as some respondents stated that they lacked the specific knowledge needed to answer those questions.Thi

67、s became particularly acute for the section of the survey regarding the specific number of lines of code used in a recent,major product or service development initiative.As noted above,this was also observed in the pretest of the questionnaire.10MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCETop-line su

68、rvey resultsThe complete survey results can be found in the Appendix to this White Paper.What follows below is a selected subset of the results,chosen to highlight findings of particular interest.Our sample frame targeted CEOs and CTO/CIOs of Fortune 500 companies.The response to our survey shows th

69、at 38%of our 431 respondents held these roles.In other cases,though,it is likely that the initial person in our sample passed the survey on to another person in the organization,with members of R&D and Business/Marketing departments being the most frequent respondents.Our sample frame aimed to targe

70、t Fortune 500 organizations.The response to Question 3 shows that this occurred often,though not always.Almost half(43%)of the responses came from organizations with revenues exceeding$1 billion,but the majority of responses came from organizations with revenues of less than$1 billion.In 2022,qualif

71、ication for the Fortune 500 required 29%Chief Executive Officer(top management/entrepreneur)18%Member of Research and Development Department18%Member of Business/Marketing9%Head of IT or Chief Information/Technology/Digital Officer6%Member of IT/Software Department3%Head of Software Development3%Mem

72、ber of Finance or Legal Department1%Independent Software Developer14%Other0333555478891111121980 1990 1993 1995 1998 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 202256.5%Less than$1 billionOver$10 billion$1 billion to less than$

73、1 billion14.75%28.75%QUESTION 1 Please indicate your position or responsibility in your organization.QUESTION 12 In what year did your organization begin to work with OSS?QUESTION 3 2021 Total annual revenue(USD)with goods and services 11MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCErevenues above$6 bi

74、llion,so our responses clearly included orga-nizations that did not fall into this category.Many of the organizations in our sample have been working with OSS for more than 20 years.However,a significant number have only started working with OSS in the last five years.Our sample thus included firms

75、with significant variation in their experience with OSS.This variation likely accounts for some of the differences in the perceived value of OSS within our sample.In a follow-on question(Question 14),19%of respondents had instituted an Open Source Program Office(OSPO)to help coordinate the use of OS

76、S and compliance with OSS licensing parameters,while 81%had not created an OSPO.We gave respondents several prompts to the question about the possible benefits of using OSS and a five-point scale to rate each Attractive IT work environment/motivation for employeesActive community for knowledge excha

77、ngeFaster development speedHigh security of softwareHigh stability,low error susceptibility in OSS codeCost savings(i.e.,lower total cost of ownership)(higher productivity)Additional revenue opportunities/access to new marketsIndependence from proprietary providersOpen standards&interoperabilityStro

78、ng support from OSS providersNo benefitsLow benefitsMedium benefitsHigh benefitsVery high benefits7.18%11.48%32.06%38.76%10.53%3.83%9.57%27.75%39.23%19.62%2.39%6.22%25.84%41.63%23.92%5.77%24.52%36.54%24.52%8.65%4.33%22.12%37.98%26.92%8.65%2.87%7.66%22.97%38.28%28.23%16.75%23.92%32.54%17.70%9.09%4.78

79、%9.57%31.10%33.01%21.53%3.35%9.57%23.92%34.45%28.71%9.57%24.40%39.71%16.27%10.05%QUESTION 16 Based on your experience,rate the degree of benefits derived from using or contributing to OSS for your organization for each of the following:12MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEpossible benefit.If

80、 we restrict our attention to the top two ratings(high benefits and very high benefits),the most highly rated benefits in rank order were:Cost savings Faster development speed Open standards and interoperabilityRespondents were also given several prompts to the question of the possible costs of usin

81、g OSS and a five-point scale to rank each possible cost.Restricting attention to the top two ratings(high costs and very high costs),the greatest perceived costs of using OSS were:Security gaps Hidden support costs Reducing legal uncertainties regarding licensingHaving queried respondents on both th

82、e perceived benefits of OSS and the perceived costs,we asked them to assess the Lost revenues(customers using product for free,competitors free-riding)Reduced ability to differentiate petitors since they can use same software as wellCosts related to legal uncertainty,such as developer and supply cha

83、in product liabilityHidden support costs due to lack of commercialsupport and missing enterprise versionsSwitching cost from proprietary to OSSCost due to security gapsCost to reduce legal uncertainties regarding licensingCost for trainingCost of selection due to abundant choice of OSSTest cost due

84、to missing certifications for OSSNo costsLow costsMedium costsHigh costsVery high costs 30.14%41.63%22.49%4.31%26.32%41.15%27.27%5.26%20.19%33.65%29.33%12.50%12.02%29.33%36.06%18.27%21.15%32.21%29.81%12.02%15.05%26.21%34.47%17.48%6.80%22.97%30.62%27.75%16.27%14.83%36.84%35.41%10.05%18.66%40.67%33.49

85、%7.18%23.56%29.33%33.65%12.02%1.44%4.33%4.33%4.81%2.39%2.87%1.44%QUESTION 17 Based on your experience,rate the primary costs associated with the use of or contribution to OSS for your organization for each of the following:CONTINUES ON PAGE 1413MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCE2.90%14.01%4

86、.35%10.63%14.49%30.92%22.71%Costs greatly exceed the benefits.Costs exceed the benefits.Costs slightly exceed the benefits.Costs are roughly equal to the benefits.Benefits slightly exceed the costs.Benefits exceed the costs.Benefits greatly exceed the costs.1.45%4.83%Costs are rising muchfaster than

87、 benefits.Costs are rising faster than benefits.Costs are rising somewhatfaster than benefits.The cost-benefit ratio has been stable.Benefits are risingsomewhat faster than costs.Benefits are rising faster than costs.Benefits are rising muchfaster than costs.10.14%34.78%20.77%20.77%7.25%0 to less th

88、an 20%20%to less than 40%40%to less than 60%60%to less than 80%More than 80%24%26%18%10%22%Less than 1,000 lines of code1,000 to less than 5,000 lines of code5,000 to less than 10,000 lines of code10,000 to less than 20,000 lines of code20,000 to less than 40,000 lines of code40,000 to less than 80,

89、000 lines of code80,000 to less than 160,000 lines of code160,000 lines of code or more14.94%16.09%14.94%14.94%6.90%5.75%8.05%18.39%QUESTION 18 What is your assessment of the overall benefit-cost ratio of using or contributing to OSS?QUESTION 19 How is the overall benefit-cost ratio of using or cont

90、ributing to OSS trending in your organization over the past 5 years?QUESTION 22 Approximately how many lines of software code were included in this new offering?QUESTION 23 Approximately what percentage of those lines of code were created from OSS?14MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEbenefit

91、cost ratio of OSS in their organization.Almost two-thirds of them reported that the benefits exceeded the costs,and only one-fifth reported that the perceived costs exceeded the benefits.We then asked how the benefitcost ratio is trending in their orga-nization.About half of the respondents reported

92、 that the ratio had been improving over the past five years.Only 16%reported a decline in the benefitcost ratio over that time frame.For the next set of results,we asked respondents to identify a recent new product or service and use that project to answer the questions about the possible alternativ

93、es to using OSS in the project.This question demanded a lot of knowledge from our respon-dents,and we received far fewer responses to this and subsequent questions as a result.The number of lines of code in the chosen project varied greatly across our respondents,from rather small projects with less

94、 than 1,000 lines of code to massive projects with more than 160,000 lines of code.Less than of the OSS cost in Q24One half to less than 1 times the OSS cost in Q24About the same cost as the OSS cost in Q24More than 1 to less than 2 times the OSS cost in Q24Two times or more the OSS cost in Q2414.61

95、%6.74%11.24%21.35%46.07%Commercial/proprietary solutionsIn-housedevelopmentNo alternatives SaaS solutionBlockchainExit business50.41%36.36%8.26%2.48%1.65%.83%Less than of the OSS cost in Q24One half to less than 1 times the OSS cost in Q24About the same cost as the OSS cost in Q24More than 1 to less

96、 than 2 times the OSS cost in Q24Two to less than 4 times the OSS cost in Q24Four times or more the OSS cost in Q246.12%7.14%10.20%21.43%24.49%30.61%QUESTION 25 For those OSS lines of code:How much would it have cost you to write the necessary lines of code to achieve that functionality with your ow

97、n software,rather than with OSS software,including ongoing support and maintenance of the code?QUESTION 26 If you had not been able to use OSS in this project:What was your next-best alternative to achieve a similar level of functionality in your release?QUESTION 28 Q28:If you had to purchase this l

98、evel of software functionality in the market(from another software company,developer,or consultant):What would you likely have paid to obtain that functionality,including ongoing support and maintenance of this code from the market?15MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCERespondents also varied

99、 in what percentage of the software in the chosen project comprised OSS code.The respondents were more or less evenly distributed between 020%,20 to 40%,40 to 60%,60 to 80%,and 80 to 100%.Respondents answers showed that most(67%)believed that it would have cost significantly more money to provide th

100、e software functionality by writing their own code relative to using OSS.Only 21%believed that it would have cost less to write their own code for that functionality.In this question,we sought to identify the best alternatives to using OSS.Unsurprisingly,commercial code and in-house develop-ment wer

101、e the primary alternatives to using OSS.Given these alternatives,most respondents(75%)felt that it would have been more expensive to purchase commercial code as the next-best alternative to OSS.Only 13%felt that it would have been less expensive.Analysis of survey results and discussionWe designed t

102、his survey to elicit careful consideration of both costs and benefits of OSS in Fortune 500 companies.As noted earlier,this sample skews more toward these large companies in contrast to the sample reported in the earlier E.U.survey on OSS(2021).Part of the survey sought to drill down to specific pro

103、jects and the code base of those projects to estimate what alternatives the respondents could have used in place of OSS in building their code.8 The questions also encouraged respondents to consider the total cost of ownership for OSS,beyond the acquisition of the initial code,to include installatio

104、n and ongoing support and main-tenance costs for the software.Considering the various questions and their respective responses,it is quite clear that respondents perceive OSS to have substan-tial economic value.The perceived benefits clearly exceed the perceived costs for a strong majority of respon

105、dents60 to 75%,depending on the specific question.And the ratio of benefits to costs appears to be rising for nearly half of the respondents,while only 16%felt that the ratio was declining.This strongly suggests that the value of OSS will increase even further in the future for most participating or

106、ganizations.According to the median responding organization to this survey,the economic value of OSS is 1 to 2 times the cost of its use.And this median result hides an asymmetric disparity at the ends of the spectrum of costs and benefits.Very few respondents(3%)saw costs well in excess of the bene

107、fits of OSS.On the other hand,22%of respondents saw value that greatly exceeded the cost of using OSS.This asymmetry continues for most of the responses to this survey,where the highly positive end of the spectrum of results is much more often reported relative to the highly negative end of the spec

108、trum.Moving to a specific project,we can be a little more precise about quantifying this asymmetric result.9 For the focal project identi-fied for the survey,14%of respondents judged building the code internally to be less than half of the cost of using OSS.By contrast,46%of respondents felt that bu

109、ilding the code internally would have cost two times the cost of using OSS or more.The other main alternative to using OSS in the focal project would have been to buy commercial software instead,and the results are again quite asymmetric.Only 6%judged that commercial software would have cost less th

110、an half the cost of using OSS.On the other end,30%of 16MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCErespondents determined that commercial software would have cost four times as much as the cost of using OSS,and another 25%felt that the commercial software would have cost at least twice as much.There

111、is additional value in OSS beyond these results,even in some of the cases where its costs seem to exceed those of internal development.In the pretest phase,some respondents indi-cated to the author that OSS might cost a bit more than internal development,but they still chose to utilize OSS because i

112、t was available now,whereas internal development would require some time in order to complete,and the internal software group may have lacked the staffing capacity to undertake that project in the immediate future.Indeed,the faster development time was the second-most cited benefit of using OSS in t

113、he survey.It is noteworthy that not all respondents saw OSSs value exceeding its costs.Another reason for this disparity,in addition to the lack of staffing capacity noted above,could be that some organizations have only recently started using OSS and may be incurring startup costs with adopting OSS

114、 that have not yet been covered by the benefits received from OSS so far.One of the leading perceived costs of the use of OSS among respondents is the management of licensing requirements,and changing this likely requires internal processes in order to track this effectively.Only a small percentage

115、of respondents have formally created an OSPO,which can centralize the management of these require-ments.A recent study of OSPOs by the LF(Linux Foundation,2022)also found that these offices help to disseminate best practices in working with OSS across the organization.This is in contrast to situatio

116、ns where individual projects in different departments within an organization engage with OSS in their own,ad hoc,ways.Another aspect of OSSs economic value to responding organiza-tions lies in the extent to which companies allow their own staff to contribute code to OSS projects.There is evidence th

117、at the more an organization contributes to OSS,the more they benefit from it(von Krogh et al.,2012).10 This result likely also increases with experience in using OSS,so organizations that have only recently started to use OSS may have yet to discover its full potential to help shape the surrounding

118、environment for the organization and steer the technical direction of critical technology that the organization is building and relying upon(West and Gallagher,2006;Alexy et al.,2018).This survey does not capture these stra-tegic benefits of participation in OSS projects,providing another reason why

119、 the results reported here,though highly favorable to OSS,may actually underestimate its value to participating orga-nizations.And,as noted above,these results also do not take the societal benefits of OSS into account.Society benefits from the ability of other firms to access the same OSS repositor

120、ies,some-thing that an individual firm may not value and that our survey did not measure.And the availability of these open repositories may even enable new firms to enter who otherwise might not have,a further societal benefit not captured in this survey.So,from a social perspective,the value of OS

121、S adoption is even greater than the results reported here.17MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEConclusionOSS has come a long way from its roots in the computer hacker community.Today,it is a valuable resource for organizations of all sizes,be they startups,SMEs,or Fortune 500 organizations.T

122、here are several costs to be aware of in the decision to use OSS,from installation and support costs to licensing compliance requirements and potential security gaps.11 However,the results of this survey are quite consistent with earlier survey research(Nagle,2019;European Commission,2021),which sho

123、ws that the perceived benefits of utilizing OSS significantly exceed these costs for the large majority of organizations that use OSS.OSS provides several important perceived benefits,including lower cost of development of software code,faster deployment of code,and the freedom that comes from adher

124、ing to widely shared technical standards.As noted above,some organizations also are learning to use OSS strategically,to shape the environment for the organization in ways that are more favorable to that organization.It is also likely that greater experience with using OSS will further enhance these

125、 benefits.This means that organizations that have not yet adopted OSS should look beyond the initial startup costs associated with adoption to a longer-term perspective in which the organization learns how to benefit more effectively from OSS.Indeed,some organizations adopt OSS even when its costs s

126、eem to be higher than alternatives because of the improvements in the speed of creating and deploying the code.A final thought for those organizations who have not yet adopted OSS is to remember one of the insights from the very early days of OSS:It pays to be more open.Software is a technology whos

127、e importance is steadily increasing over time.Opening up ones process for developing this foundational technology in your organization can enlist the voluntary contributions of many,many other talented and creative developers.There is value in unleashing this cognitive diversity on your behalf.There

128、 is an option value from enlisting these external contributors,where you cannot know in advance what they will contribute,but there are good reasons to expect very positive contributions,well beyond what your internal software resources would likely have gener-ated.Adopting OSS can allow you to embr

129、ace a more vibrant,surprising,and exciting future.18MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEReferencesAlexy,O.,West,J.,Klapper,H.,&Reitzig,M.(2018).Surrendering control to gain advantage:Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm.Strategic Management Journal,39(6),17041727.https

130、:/doi.org/10.1002/smj.2706 Barron,J.S.(2018).The history behind Christine Petersons term“open source software.”SD Times,February 2.https:/ Chesbrough,H.,2022.“OSS research in organizational management:A literature review and critical reappraisal,”working paper,Garwood Center for Corporate Innovation

131、,UC BerkeleyCarter,H.(2019).Blockchain for Saving our Seas.Blockchain Research Institute.https:/ Economic Value of Open Source,in Chesbrough,et al,2023,The Oxford Handbook of Open Innovation,Oxford University Press:Oxford,UKCohen,Wesley M.,You-Na Lee,and John P.Walsh.How Innovative Are Innovations?A

132、 Multidimensional,Survey-Based Approach.Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the 21st Century.University of Chicago Press,2019Dwyer,G.P.(2015).The economics of Bitcoin and similar private digital currencies.Journal of Financial Stability,17(4),8191.https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2014.11.006Europ

133、ean Commission,Directorate General for Communications Networks,Content Technology,Blind,K.,Ptsch,S.,Muto,S.,Bhm,M.,Schubert,T.,Grzegorzewska,P.,Katz,A.,2021.The impact of open source software and hardware on technolog-ical independence,competitiveness and innovation in the EU economy:Final study rep

134、ort.Publications OfficeFitzgerald,B.(2006).The transformation of open source software.MIS quarterly,30(3),587598.https:/doi.org/10.2307/25148740Gruber,M.,&Henkel,J.(2006).New ventures based on open innovationAn empirical analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux.International Journal of Technolog

135、y Management,33(4),356372.https:/doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2006.009249Hughes,O.(2022).Developers are in short supply.Here are the skills and programming languages employers need.ZDnet,January 11.https:/ Jean Tirole.Some simple economics of open source.The Journal of Industrial Economics50.2(2002):197234.

136、https:/doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00174 Lin,G.,Wen,S.,Han,Q.L.,Zhang,J.,&Xiang,Y.(2020).Software vulnerability detection using deep neural networks:a survey.Proceedings of the IEEE,108(10),18251848.https:/doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2020.2993293Linux Foundation(2022).LFX Insights:Global Trends.Accessed Apr

137、il 1,2022,URL:https:/insights.lfx.linuxfoundation.org/projects/trends;quicktime=time_filter_MAX Linux Foundation(2022).Creating an Open Source Program,https:/www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/open-source-guides/creating-an-open-source-program,last accessed December 4,2022Mller-Seitz,G.,&Reger,G.(201

138、0).Networking beyond the software code?An explorative examination of the develop-ment of an open source car project.Technovation,30(1112),627634.https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.07.00619MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCENagle,F.,2019.Open source software and firm productivity.Mana

139、gement Science.65(3),11911215.https:/doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2977 Naudts,B.,Tavernier,W.,Verbrugge,S.,Colle,D.,&Pickavet,M.(2016).Deploying SDN and NFV at the speed of innovation:Toward a new bond between standards development orga-nizations,industry fora,and open-source software projects.IEEE Com

140、munications Magazine,54(3),4653.https:/doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2016.7432171Neus,A.,&Scherf,P.(2005).Opening minds:Cultural change with the introduction of open-source collaboration methods.IBM Systems Journal,44(2),215225 https:/doi.org/10.1147/sj.442.0215Raymond,E.S.(2000).The Cathedral and the Bazaar

141、,Sept.11.URL:http:/www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/Schweik,C.M.(2007).Toward the comparison of open source commons institutions.In Charlotte Hess&Elinor Ostrom,eds.,Governing Knowledge Commons,MIT Press,255279Torvalds,L.,&Diamond,D.(2001).Just for fun:The story of an acci

142、-dental revolutionary.New York:Harper CollinsVitharana,P.,King,J.,&Chapman,H.S.(2010).Impact of internal open source development on reuse:Participatory reuse in action.Journal of Management Information Systems,27(2),277304.https:/doi.org/10.2753/MISvon Hippel,Eric(2005).Democratizing

143、Innovation,MIT Press,Cambridge MA.Democratizing Innovation von Krogh,G.,&von Hippel,E.(2006).The promise of research on open source software.Management Science,52(7),975983.http:/doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0560 von Krogh,G.,Haefliger,S.,Spaeth,S.,&Wallin,M.W.(2012).Carrots and rainbows:Motivation and

144、 social practice in open source software development.MIS Quarterly,649676.https:/doi.org/10.2307/41703471 West,J.,&Gallagher,S.(2006).Challenges of open innova-tion:the paradox of firm investment in opensource software.R&D Management,36(3),319331 https:/doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x Zemli

145、n,Jim,2022.“Ubiquitous Software Innovation Building Block:Open Source”,forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Open Innovation,by Chesbrough,Radziwon,Vanhaverbeke and West20MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAppendixSection A:Position of the person answering the questionnaireQ1.Please indicate

146、 your position or responsibility in your organization.CountPercentageChief Executive Officer(top management/entrepreneur)12529.00%Head of IT or Chief Information/Technology/Digital Officer388.82%Head of Software Development143.25%Member of IT/Software Department255.80%Member of Business/Marketing761

147、7.63%Member of Finance or Legal Department143.25%Member of Research and Development Department7717.87%Independent Software Developer20.46%Other6013.92%Total431100.00%Section B:Basic information about your organizationQ2.What is your organizations core business or primary sector of activity?CountPerc

148、entageAgriculture20.46%Automotive214.87%Business Services306.96%Construction51.16%Education7717.87%Finance and Insurance214.87%Health Care and Social Assistance184.18%Hospitality and Tourism30.70%High-Tech(IT,Telecommunications,Biotech,etc.)10925.29%Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services317.

149、19%Manufacturing306.96%Media40.93%Nonprofit102.32%21MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXMining,Oil,and Gas40.93%Public Sector81.86%Retail and Consumer Goods122.78%Real Estate,Rental,and Leasing40.93%Transportation and Logistics40.93%Utilities/Energy225.10%Defense&Aerospace51.16%Other1

150、12.55%Total431100.00%Q3.Total annual revenue with goods and services (Please answer for the year 2021 and in U.S.dollars).CountPercentageLess than$1 billion22656.50%$1 billion to less than$10 billion5914.75%Over$10 billion11528.75%Total400100.00%Q4.Number of employees in your organization (Please an

151、swer for the year 2021).CountPercentageLess than 1,00021249.53%1,000 to 9,9997918.46%10,000 to 99,9998720.33%100,000 to 999,9995011.68%Total428100.00%Q5.Expenditure for research,development,and innovation(Please answer for the year 2021 and in U.S.dollars).CountPercentageLess than$1 million14440.45%

152、$1 million to less than$10 million7721.63%$10 million to less than$100 million5716.01%$100 million to less than$1 million4312.08%$1 billion or more359.83%Total356100.00%22MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ6.The percentage of revenue in the year 2021 from products or services new to

153、 your organization in the past three years.CountPercentageLess than 5%6822.44%5%to less than 10%4815.84%10%to less than 20%4113.53%20%to less than 40%7625.08%40%or more7023.10%Total303100.00%Q7.The number of employees devoted to the development of software in your organization.CountPercentageLess th

154、an 1016838.98%10 to 999020.88%100 to 9998118.79%1,000 to 9,9995412.53%10,000 or more388.82%Total431100.00%Q8.The year that your company was founded.CountPercentage166510.23%166810.23%175310.23%178310.23%178920.46%183610.23%183710.23%184510.23%184710.23%186010.23%186530.70%186610.23%186830.70%186910.

155、23%Q8.The year that your company was founded.CountPercentage187020.46%187120.46%187310.23%187410.23%187640.93%188010.23%188220.46%188520.46%188630.70%189110.23%189520.46%189720.46%189830.70%189910.23%23MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ8.The year that your company was founded.Count

156、Percentage190020.46%190210.23%190310.23%190410.23%190510.23%190610.23%190810.23%190910.23%191020.46%191171.62%191220.46%191610.23%191720.46%191910.23%192010.23%192120.46%192230.70%192310.23%192420.46%192620.46%192710.23%192820.46%193010.23%193210.23%193310.23%193410.23%193520.46%193610.23%193810.23%

157、193920.46%194410.23%194520.46%Q8.The year that your company was founded.CountPercentage194620.46%194710.23%194851.16%194910.23%195030.70%195120.46%195510.23%195610.23%195710.23%195840.93%196040.93%196110.23%196261.39%196520.46%196610.23%196730.70%196840.93%196961.39%197020.46%197110.23%197251.16%197

158、320.46%197430.70%197510.23%197651.16%197740.93%197820.46%198051.16%198110.23%198271.62%198351.16%198451.16%24MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ8.The year that your company was founded.CountPercentage198520.46%198630.70%198730.70%198820.46%198930.70%199030.70%199140.93%199220.46%199

159、340.93%199440.93%199620.46%199710.23%199881.86%1999102.32%200092.09%200130.70%200220.46%200340.93%200451.16%Q8.The year that your company was founded.CountPercentage200520.46%200681.86%200781.86%200881.86%200961.39%201081.86%201151.16%2012133.02%201381.86%201451.16%2015112.55%2016122.78%2017133.02%2

160、018133.02%2019143.25%2020153.48%2021122.78%202230.70%Total431100.00%Q9:Are you answering the following questions from the perspective of an organizational subunit or project within your organization?CountPercentageYes14232.87%No28967.13%Total431100.00%25MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPP

161、ENDIXQ10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or project below.IDResponses1The management consulting division of the capgemini group2The org-unit ensures the consistency of the applica-tion and infrastructural architecture,defining standards and managing enterprise architecture models.

162、In addition,the org-unit ensures the implementation of the techno-logical innovation roadmap,do research on disruptive technology and collaborates on business innovation.3Cloud Division 4Clients project5I work in healthcare6New business development and tech-nology sourcing at R&D subsidiaries7Digita

163、l Design:Electronic Development(HW,SW,H&H),IoT,Ux,Cloud,APP8The Innovation Unit provides mentorship to the whole organization(Credem Group)and promotes inno-vation activities in order to change how people approach problems in their day by day activities9Construction of shafts10Company specialised in

164、 offering management services and optimisation of financial resources for research,develop-ment and innovation activities in companies and organisations.We offer global solutions for the financing and manage-ment of the innovation process in companies with the aim of optimising their resources and b

165、oosting their growth to make them more competitive in the market.11Product&technology development for the cyber and Security Solutions Unit 12Innovation&Intellectual Property13Intellectual Property14Innovation15Strategic Management Department 16Develops firmware and applications software for an ultr

166、a wideband transceiver17I overview all the companyQ10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or project below.18The main goal of my organizazitional unit is to provide IT support to Business Users IT and manage IT projects involved19Service Operations Department.Our goal is to manage the

167、 conti-nuity and the software development of our business services 20A Business School21Our subunit studies food design under a bigger umbrella lab that studies design in general.22Developing digital tools in the plants to validate the noise from the products23I am in charge of five out of the eight

168、een business units that my company has.24GTM Strategy for Manufacturing Industry25I work for a subunit in the Innovation and Human Resource Department26Center for Corporate Innovation27blb28Corporate Innovation29Product manager at a fintech firm30The subunit is it the IT department for a partic-ular

169、 college.This unit is responsible for assisting Faculty and Staff with technological needs.31Developing new cruise projects32IT Business Operations-includes IT Program Management,IT Financial Management,IT Administration,Vendor Management,Enterprise Architecture,Innovation33Open Innovation City;stat

170、e-funded project;Fostering open innovation culture and exploring open innova-tion methods across the entire urban ecosystem34Business development,open innovation,M&A35Seperate investment fund of 250mln Euros under asset36e2e development,delivery and maintenance of SW Applications for managing teleco

171、mmunications networks 37We are an institute within a larger university with responsibility for leadership development and professional/executive education.38R&D/Innovation26MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or project below.39Op

172、en innovation process to connect a big company with startups.we use a platform to boost the process.40Project provides answers for users questions.41Business college42As a startup,we have one main product.Its generating revenue but the company is not profitable yet.Our software is for supply planner

173、s in pharmaceutical companies.We help manufacturers forecast how much to produce to avoid stock-outs and expiry.43Development of Crowdsourcing platform44Remaining questions are answered for the CTO organiza-tion of a global company of about 70.000 employees.The CTO Organization and its units represe

174、nt about 1500 employees.45Entrepreneurship Education46Business development,public/private partnerships 47Semiconductor Design And Manufacturing For Digital World.48Strategy Customer Experience and data driven transformation49Country unit50I am part of the Infrastructure Global Practice and focus on

175、the ECA region.51R&D Packaging52Business school53M&A Advisory,focused on the tech sector54Strategy Research Unit of University55Department 56Easier to use and modify if necessary57New business Development 58My subunit is responsible for providing proptech solutions to real estate sector,that is tech

176、nology data&information management,we also have an spark fund to invest&acquire proptech startups.59Global 61Maitain the latest gaming network and compa-nys internal system by using ERP62Education platformQ10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or project below.63Program office64Resea

177、rch focused on business decision making,critical societal needs and application of knowledge.65IT department responsible for developing and managing global enterprise applications.66Management Department at a College of Business67Finance Data Strategy&Analytics team IT embedded in a finan-cial funct

178、ion,mostly finance folks with a streak of data geekery68hardware development69Na 70Telco oriented vertical for delivering appli-cation orchestration infrastructure71AWS,part of Amazon72Product research and development 73Physical POS terminal launch for taxi drivers in Turkey 74Education environment,

179、fixed wireless infra-structure for remote learning75Part of Radio Access Network broadly.76Academic department77We are a Corporate Venture Team in charge to explore new digital business models through a venture building innovation process(Ideation&research,Prototyping and validation,MVP,scaling)78en

180、abling our clients to unlock the digital future with our ecosystem.So,whatever you need to transform your business,making an impact to society,create unseen opportunities we have the right people,the knowledge and partners to achieve your vision.79Global Technology 80Building glass81Global operation

181、s82IBM Consulting(formerly called Global Business Services)83Group risk Services,insurance,business continuity 84Recruitment services to the life science sector 85Business development27MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or projec

182、t below.86Innovative Solutions in Health Care like Self-driving Hospital beds,drones for drug delivery using climat infrastructure87Solution Design Unit and Business Analysis Department-we work with Proposals and Delivery to propose best solution response to our clients problems88Exploring the next

183、big thing for the organization thru the devel-opment of new ways of monetization for our digital assets89I am head of Fraunhofer ISST.The institute is one of 76 insti-tutes in total within the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft.90Value exchange System91n/a92Building software platform for Trust engineering need

184、s for our companys Software products offered as SaaS 93We build products and services for the future state of banking using emerging tech 94No license fees,no revenue share95Na96I lead multicloud devOps to enable the firms LOBs to develop and operate securely and with resilience in public clouds97Ru

185、tgers Business School 98We build software but use open source technology to help build some of the key pieces that drive platform development.Coupled with proprietary AI/machine learning we deliver data output sometimes experimentally with open sources software99Responsible Innovation&Entrepreneursh

186、ip Research Initiatives:The main goal of this initiative is to support high-impact and rigorous faculty scholarship in the realm of Responsible Innovation and Entrepreneurship(RI&E)such that it supports innova-tion and ethics-oriented elements of the universitys mission.100Corporate Innovation101Ber

187、keley has several departments that write and create software102Honeywell Energy 103Education and research in international business,government,and economicsQ10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or project below.104Now saudes,strategy+documentacin.In the near past open innovacin rea.

188、105I work on Education projects at Adobe106open source AI and Data107Benchmarking-Development of a research database108We are a marketing research company.I work on a client services team that conducts qualitative research and provides analysis and reporting on that research.109Creating a platform t

189、hrough both an IT capability and organi-zational collaborations to create market access opportunities 110I work in the corporate Venturing and innovation division.We help corporations in their innovation processes through interaction with different stakeholders,mostly startups.We also support the de

190、velopment of the Italian innova-tion ecosystem building bridges between stakeholder with different goals,such as:investors,corporates,research institutions,academia,startups and professionals111Department for Strategy and Management(Part of University)112I am leading 42 Berlin and 42 Wolfsburg which

191、 are higher educa-tion ventures in the 42 Network(approx 40 schools internationally)113Aims to provide scientific skills and knowledge related to research activity,enabling the award of the PhD degree114Research and development department115The R&D department of a multi-energy company116We are provi

192、ding different kinds of IT Compliance related services to clients.This includes IT-Audits on the tech-nological and organizational layer,IT transformation compliance as well as implementation projects.117It deals with Management courses118Innovation Sourcing for Sustainability119Research group at a

193、university.120Commercial distribution channel for multiple divisions.121eSTiP-www.estip-Open Innovation active at HCL since 8 years where weve grown the ecosystem 10 x-1500+partners and a self sustainable organiza-tion providing innovation for internal and client asks.28MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE

194、OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or project below.122Open source standards and emerging technology applications demonstrating those standards.123Center within larger org124use open source softwares to digest financial market information and turn into inves

195、tment insights125Research and development 126higher education127Research,developing next Gen technologies128Creating a big data infrastructure for our production data129Lead technology strategies such as software technology and so on.130New energy develop,invest,build and opetation131-Used in extens

196、ibility -Used in platform after formal legal and business review:security,streaming services,industries132proprietary client clinical file and record management system Q10.Please provide a brief description of your subunit or project below.133core engineering,software and services134C135Open Source

197、Program Office136Every process is based on open source software 137Standard and extensible implementation that will be maintained up to date.Low cost.138Working on capabilities development of R&D intensive firms of Lithuania 139Providing solutions by leveraging OSS140Open source software research or

198、ganization141Research department publishes qualitative and quantitative studies on open source,some of which are sponsored by 3rd parties.142Garwood CenterSection C:Involvement in Open Source CommunitiesQ11:Is your organization using or contributing to open source software(OSS)?OSS is defined as sof

199、tware designs that are distributed under a license,which complies with the Open Source Definition or the Free Software Foundations Four Freedoms.CountPercentageYes27263.11%No15936.89%Total431100.00%29MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ12:In what year did your organization begin to w

200、ork with OSS?CountPercentage198010.78%199053.91%199321.56%199532.34%199810.78%199921.56%2000107.81%200210.78%200321.56%200432.34%200621.56%200732.34%200875.47%200910.78%201043.13%201132.34%201253.91%201364.69%201421.56%201553.91%2016129.38%2017118.59%201886.25%2019118.59%202097.03%202186.25%202210.7

201、8%Total128100.0%30MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ13:How often does your organization participate in each of the following aspects of the develop-ment of OSS?NeverSeldomSometimesMost timesAlwaysTotal CountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageWe ar

202、e a paying member or sponsor of an OSS foundation.9139.06%4218.03%6327.04%83.43%2912.45%233We buy support services and subscriptions for enter-prise editions of OSS.3816.31%4619.74%9440.34%2812.02%2711.59%233We provide upstream contributions from our organization back to the OSS community.4720.17%45

203、19.31%7933.91%2611.16%3615.45%233We are the financial sponsor of public events that foster OSS(e.g.,conferences).10042.92%5222.32%4921.03%146.01%187.73%233We have internal policies that foster the use of OSS(e.g.,consumption policies).3715.88%3615.45%7230.90%3916.74%4921.03%233Q13:How often does you

204、r organization participate in each of the following aspects of the development of OSS?MINMAXMEANStd.DeviationBASIC STATISTICS(5-point Likert scale:1=Never 5=Always)StatisticStatisticStatisticStd.ErrorStatisticWe are a paying member or sponsor of an OSS foundation.152.3220.088 1.350 We buy support se

205、rvices and subscriptions for enterprise editions of OSS.152.8280.078 1.187 We provide upstream contributions from our orga-nization back to the OSS community.152.8240.086 1.306 We are the financial sponsor of public events that foster OSS(e.g.,conferences).152.1330.082 1.251 We have internal policie

206、s that foster the use of OSS(e.g.,consumption policies).153.1160.088 1.339 31MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ14:Has your organization instituted an Open Source Program Office(OSPO)?The OSPO is a typical organizational unit responsible for creating directives,policies,and guidelin

207、es for OSS community engagement,often composed of software developers,software architects,lawyers,and product managers.CountPercentageYes4519.31%No18880.69%Total233100.00%Q15:How often does your organization use an OSPO to manage open source in each of the following aspects?NeverSeldomSometimesMost

208、timesAlwaysTotal CountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageWe use an OSPO to facil-itate the use of open source,license compliance reviews,and oversight.2 4.44%3 6.67%12 26.67%13 28.89%15 33.33%45 We use an OSPO to ensure high-quality and frequent releases to open so

209、urce communities.1 2.22%3 6.67%17 37.78%13 28.89%11 24.44%45 We use an OSPO to engage with developer communities and participate in events.1 2.22%0 0.00%16 35.56%13 28.89%15 33.33%45 We use an OSPO to foster an open source culture.1 2.22%1 2.22%16 35.56%14 31.11%13 28.89%45 We use an OSPO to train e

210、mployees.1 2.22%6 13.33%13 28.89%13 28.89%12 26.67%45 We use an OSPO to track OSS usage.3 6.67%3 6.67%13 28.89%13 28.89%13 28.89%45 32MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ15:How often does your organization use an OSPO to manage open source in each of the following aspects?MINMAXMEANS

211、td.DeviationBASIC STATISTICS(5-point Likert scale:1=Never 5=Always)StatisticStatisticStatisticStd.ErrorStatisticWe use an OSPO to facilitate the use of open source,license compliance reviews,and oversight.153.773 0.169 1.118 We use an OSPO to ensure high-quality and frequent releases to open source

212、communities.153.636 0.149 0.990 We use an OSPO to engage with developer commu-nities and participate in events.153.886 0.143 0.945 We use an OSPO to foster an open source culture.153.795 0.144 0.954 We use an OSPO to train employees.153.614 0.163 1.083 We use an OSPO to track OSS usage.153.636 0.175

213、 1.163 Q16:Based on your expe-rience,rate the degree of benefits derived from using or contributing to OSS for your organization for each of the following:No benefitsLow benefitsMedium benefitsHigh benefitsVery high benefitsTotal BASIC STATISTICS(5-point Likert scale:1=No benefits 5=Very high benefi

214、ts)CountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageAttractive IT work envi-ronment/motivation for employees.15 7.18%24 11.48%67 32.06%81 38.76%22 10.53%209 Active community for knowledge exchange.8 3.83%20 9.57%58 27.75%82 39.23%41 19.62%209 Faster development speed.5 2.39

215、%13 6.22%54 25.84%87 41.63%50 23.92%209 High security of software.12 5.77%51 24.52%76 36.54%51 24.52%18 8.65%209 High stability,low error susceptibility in OSS code.9 4.33%46 22.12%79 37.98%56 26.92%18 8.65%209 Cost savings(i.e.,lower total cost of ownership)(higher productivity).6 2.87%16 7.66%48 2

216、2.97%80 38.28%59 28.23%209 33MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXAdditional revenue opportunities/access to new markets.35 16.75%50 23.92%68 32.54%37 17.70%19 9.09%209 Independence from proprietary providers.10 4.78%20 9.57%65 31.10%69 33.01%45 21.53%209 Open standards&interoperabilit

217、y.7 3.35%20 9.57%50 23.92%72 34.45%60 28.71%209 Strong support from OSS providers.20 9.57%51 24.40%83 39.71%34 16.27%21 10.05%209 Q16:Based on your experience,rate the degree of benefits derived from using or contributing to OSS for your organization for each of the following:MINMAXMEANStd.Deviation

218、 BASIC STATISTICS(5-point Likert scale:1=No benefits 5=Very high benefits)StatisticStatisticStatisticStd.ErrorStatisticAttractive IT work environment/motivation for employees.153.333 0.072 1.033 Active community for knowledge exchange.153.599 0.071 1.023 Faster development speed.153.778 0.067 0.960

219、High security of software.153.053 0.071 1.025 High stability,low error susceptibility in OSS code.153.130 0.069 0.999 Cost savings(i.e.,lower total cost of ownership)(higher productivity).153.807 0.071 1.025 Additional revenue opportunities/access to new markets.152.792 0.082 1.174 Independence from

220、 proprietary providers.153.565 0.075 1.077 Open standards&interoperability.153.744 0.075 1.078 Strong support from OSS providers.152.918 0.076 1.087 Q16:Based on your experience,rate the degree of benefits derived from using or contributing to OSS for your organization for each of the following:Othe

221、r benefits(please specify)(5-point Likert scale:1=No benefits 5=Very high benefits)RateClient-specific requests will result in benefits for the company2Some SW only available in OSS3Trust from people seeing familiar UI3Access to data science from University Knowledge and Network3Software parts accel

222、erate some R&D3Adds additional features and capabilities4Q16:Based on your experience,rate the degree of benefits derived from using or contributing to OSS for your organization for each of the following:Other benefits(please specify)(5-point Likert scale:1=No benefits 5=Very high benefits)RateHavin

223、g clear guidelines of OSS across communities4Setting standards for the industry4Ability to focus on proprietary functionality outside of OS domain4Provides some attractiveness for job seekers4Networking434MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ16:Based on your experience,rate the degree

224、 of benefits derived from using or contributing to OSS for your organization for each of the following:Other benefits(please specify)(5-point Likert scale:1=No benefits 5=Very high benefits)RateWe develop and open a software.This helps us increasing the market of your company.4ACCESS TO TENDER FOR T

225、HE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION5Access to open innovation5Ability to use developed with others OSS software(integrating multiple competences),but adjust it to our needs and populate it with specific for our company and its stakeholders needs within the license.5Access to top talent5Plenty.List would be too

226、 long.5OSS is a trust anchor in itself;plus,it allows to utilize the power of the many in fields where no single actor alone has suffi-cient resources(e.g.,in the field of data infrastructures).5Foster education and research5Complete control of the software,which has very large benefits for analytic

227、s,support,and maintenance.Also:increased flexibility;ability to adapt and modify for changing technological and market condi-tions.For startups,these benefits are quite substantial.They allow us to prototype our needs with OSS,and if a proprietary product does not fit our needs,we stay with it(almos

228、t always).Development is often much faster with OSS,with fewer lines of code needing to be written.5Q16:Based on your experience,rate the degree of benefits derived from using or contributing to OSS for your organization for each of the following:Other benefits(please specify)(5-point Likert scale:1

229、=No benefits 5=Very high benefits)RateCustomers ask for solutions based on OSS5Speed to market5Thought leadership and faster convergence on tools and methods.5Experimentation5Community creation5Freedom of personalization based on unique business needs5Freedom of action and access to volunteer talent

230、5Long-term costs from providers(e.g.,salesforce)Very recently sought after by our company due to changing external expertise we need access to.Q17:Based on your experience,rate the primary costs associated with the use of or contribution to OSS for your organiza-tion for each of the following:No Cos

231、tsLow CostsMedium CostsHigh CostsVery High CostsTotal Lost revenues(customers using product for free,competitors free riding).CountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageCountPercentageReduced ability to differentiate pet-itors,since they can use same software as well.63 30.14%87 41.

232、63%47 22.49%9 4.31%3 1.44%209 35MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXCosts related to legal uncertainty,such as developer and supply chain product liability.55 26.32%86 41.15%57 27.27%11 5.26%0 0.00%209 Hidden support costs due to lack of commercial support and missing enterprise versi

233、ons.42 20.19%70 33.65%61 29.33%26 12.50%9 4.33%209 Switching cost from proprietary to OSS.25 12.02%61 29.33%75 36.06%38 18.27%9 4.33%209 Cost due to security gaps.44 21.15%67 32.21%62 29.81%25 12.02%10 4.81%209 Cost to reduce legal uncertain-ties regarding licensing.31 15.05%55 26.21%72 34.47%37 17.

234、48%14 6.80%209 Cost for training.48 22.97%64 30.62%58 27.75%34 16.27%5 2.39%209 Cost of selection due to abundant choice of OSS.31 14.83%77 36.84%74 35.41%21 10.05%6 2.87%209 Test cost due to missing certi-fications for OSS.39 18.66%85 40.67%70 33.49%15 7.18%0 0.00%209 Q17:Based on your experience,r

235、ate the primary costs associated with the use of or contribution to OSS for your organization for each of the following:MINMAXMEANStd.DeviationBASIC STATISTICS(5-point Likert scale:1=No Costs 5=Very high Costs)StatisticStatisticStatisticStd.ErrorStatisticLost revenues(customers using product for fre

236、e,competitors free riding).15 2.063 0.064 0.920 Reduced ability to differentiate petitors,since they can use same software as well.1 4 2.121 0.060 0.859 Costs related to legal uncertainty,such as developer and supply chain product liability.1 5 2.473 0.075 1.078 Hidden support costs due to lack of c

237、ommer-cial support and missing enterprise versions.1 5 2.739 0.072 1.033 Switching cost from proprietary to OSS.15 2.469 0.076 1.096 Cost due to security gaps.1 5 2.729 0.078 1.117 Cost to reduce legal uncertainties regarding licensing.1 5 2.464 0.076 1.092 Cost for training.1 5 2.473 0.066 0.949 Co

238、st of selection due to abundant choice of OSS.142.295 0.060 0.856 Test cost due to missing certifications for OSS.1 5 2.396 0.071 1.023 36MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ17:Based on your experience,rate the primary costs associated with the use of or contribution to OSS for your

239、organization for each of the following:Other costs(please specify)(5-point Likert scale:1=No costs 5=Very high costs)RateFreedom of action and access to talent1Pro services consumption2Coordination costs.time in committees and managing human complexities.2Packaging/software distribution/maintenance

240、hurdle2Downtime from interoperability bugs and rollback3Incomplete feature sets/increased time to bug resolution vs.homegrown solutions3Development costs may be higher than anticipated,since OSS products often have limited scope or bounds that do not fit our needs.Also,managing the dependencies of O

241、SS is often a challenge,but manageable with skilled developers.3Cost of changing internal procurement system rules4Users support the OSS idea,butat least implicitlydemand a managed service(release management,complexity management,etc.)4Development and modification time4Community building costs4Ban u

242、se of OSS by clients5Q18:What is your assessment of the overall benefitcost ratio of using or contributing to OSS?CountPercentage(1=Costs greatly exceed the benefits 7=Benefits greatly exceed the costs)Costs greatly exceed the benefits62.90%Costs exceed the benefits2914.01%Costs slightly exceed the

243、benefits94.35%Costs are roughly equal to the benefits2210.63%Benefits slightly exceed the costs3014.49%Benefits exceed the costs6430.92%Benefits greatly exceed the costs4722.71%Total207100.00%Mean(Std.Error)5.034(.125)Std.Deviation1.799 37MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ19:How is

244、 the overall benefitcost ratio of using or contributing to OSS trending in your organization over the past five years?CountPercentage(1=Costs are rising much faster than benefits 7=Benefits are rising much faster than costs)Costs are rising much faster than benefits31.45%Costs are rising faster than

245、 benefits104.83%Costs are rising somewhat faster than benefits2110.14%The costbenefit ratio has been stable7234.78%Benefits are rising somewhat faster than costs4320.77%Benefits are rising faster than costs4320.77%Benefits are rising much faster than costs157.25%Total207100.00%Mean(Std.Error)4.599(.

246、092)Std.Deviation1.329 Q20:Using any number from 0 to 10,where 0 is no costs and 10 is extremely high costs,what number would you use to rate the costs of using and/or contributing to OSS?CountPercentage041.93%1104.83%23114.98%34722.71%42713.04%53717.87%63315.94%7146.76%820.97%900.00%1020.97%Total20

247、7100.00%Mean(Std.Error)5.048(.130)Std.Deviation1.874 38MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ21:Using any number from 0 to 10,where 0 is no benefits and 10 is extremely high benefits,what number would you use to rate the benefits of using and/or contributing to OSS?CountPercentage040.0

248、0%1100.48%2311.45%3471.93%4275.80%53713.04%63312.56%71420.29%8219.81%9016.43%1028.21%Total207100.00%Mean(Std.Error)5.034(.132)Std.Deviation1.904 Q21/Q20:the overall benefitcost ratio of using or contributing to OSS(by number)CountPercentageCumulative Percent0.510.48%0.48%0.5510.48%0.97%0.7510.48%1.4

249、5%0.8210.48%1.93%0.8320.97%2.90%0.8631.45%4.35%0.8831.45%5.80%13315.94%21.74%1.1110.48%22.22%1.1331.45%23.67%1.1452.42%26.09%1.1741.93%28.02%1.252.42%30.43%39MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIX1.2562.90%33.33%1.2973.38%36.71%1.33125.80%42.51%1.3810.48%43.00%1.420.97%43.96%1.4383.86%4

250、7.83%1.552.42%50.24%1.5710.48%50.72%1.641.93%52.66%1.6762.90%55.56%1.7573.38%58.94%1.894.35%63.29%1.8331.45%64.73%2188.70%73.43%2.210.48%73.91%2.25104.83%78.74%2.3310.48%79.23%2.531.45%80.68%2.6741.93%82.61%2.7541.93%84.54%3104.83%89.37%3.3383.86%93.24%3.6731.45%94.69%552.42%97.10%5.531.45%98.55%810

251、.48%99.03%1010.48%99.52%1110.48%100.00%Total207.00100.00%Mean(Std.Error)1.936(.095)Std.Deviation1.367 40MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ22:Approximately how many lines of software code were included in this new offering?(1=Less than 1,000 lines of code.8=160,000 lines of code or

252、more)CountPercentageCumulative PercentLess than 1,000 lines of code1314.94%14.94%1,000 to less than 5,000 lines of code1416.09%31.03%5,000 to less than 10,000 lines of code1314.94%45.98%10,000 to less than 20,000 lines of code1314.94%60.92%20,000 to less than 40,000 lines of code66.90%67.82%40,000 t

253、o less than 80,000 lines of code55.75%73.56%80,000 to less than 160,000 lines of code78.05%81.61%160,000 lines of code or more1618.39%100.00%Total87100.00%Mean(Std.Error)4.241(0.265)Std.Deviation2.473Q23:Approximately what percentage of those lines of code were created from OSS?(1=0 to less than 20%

254、.5=More than 80%)CountPercentageCumulative Percent0 to less than 20%2424.00%24.00%20%to less than 40%2626.00%50.00%40%to less than 60%1818.00%68.00%60%to less than 80%1010.00%78.00%More than 80%2222.00%100.00%Total100100.0%Mean(Std.Error)2.800(0.148)Std.Deviation1.477 Q24:What was your approximate c

255、ost of creating these lines of code from OSS in the project,including a)bug fixing,b)licensing obligations,c)legal checks,d)compliance management?(Please answer in U.S.Dollars.)(1=Less than$100,000.5=$5 million or more)CountPercentageCumulative PercentLess than$100,0005556.70%56.70%$100,000 to less

256、than$500,0001818.56%75.26%$500,000 to less than$1 million1111.34%86.60%$1 million to less than$5 million1010.31%96.91%$5 million or more33.09%100.00%Total97100.0%Mean(Std.Error)1.845(0.118)Std.Deviation1.167 41MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ25:For those OSS lines of code:How muc

257、h would it have cost you to write the necessary lines of code to achieve that functionality with your own software,rather than with OSS software,including ongoing support and maintenance of the code?(1=Less than of the OSS cost in Q24.5=2 times or more the OSS cost in Q24)CountPercentageCumulative P

258、ercentLess than of the OSS cost in Q241314.61%14.61%to less than 1 times the OSS cost in Q2466.74%21.35%About the same cost as OSS cost in Q241011.24%32.58%more than 1 to less than 2 times the OSS cost in Q241921.35%53.93%2 times or more the OSS cost in Q244146.07%100.00%Total89100.0%Mean(Std.Error)

259、3.775(0.155)Std.Deviation1.460 Q26:If you had not been able to use OSS in this project:What was your next-best alternative to achieve a similar level of functionality in your release?CountPercentageCommercial/proprietary solutions6150.41%In-house development4436.36%No alternatives 108.26%SaaS Soluti

260、on32.48%Blockchain21.65%Exit business10.83%Total121100.0%42MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAPPENDIXQ27:Approximately what would this next-best alternative have cost you to obtain,including ongoing support and maintenance of the code?(1=Less than of the OSS cost in Q24.6=4 times or more th

261、e OSS cost in Q24)CountPercentageCumulative PercentLess than of the OSS cost in Q2499.00%9.00%to less than 1 times the OSS cost in Q2455.00%14.00%About the same cost as OSS cost in Q241111.00%25.00%More than 1 to less than 2 times the OSS cost in Q242525.00%50.00%2 to less than 4 times the OSS cost

262、in Q242121.00%71.00%4 times or more the OSS cost in Q242929.00%100.00%Total100100.0%Mean(Std.Error)4.310(0.156)Std.Deviation1.555 Q28:If you had to purchase this level of software functionality in the market(from another software company,developer,or consultant):What would you likely have paid to ob

263、tain that func-tionality,including ongoing support and maintenance of this code from the market?(1=Less than of the OSS cost in Q24.6=4 times or more the OSS cost in Q24)CountPercentageCumulative PercentLess than of the OSS cost in Q2466.12%6.12%to less than 1 times the OSS cost in Q2477.14%13.27%Ab

264、out the same cost as OSS cost in Q241010.20%23.47%More than 1 to less than 2 times the OSS cost in Q242121.43%44.90%2 to less than 4 times the OSS cost in Q242424.49%69.39%4 times or more the OSS cost in Q243030.61%100.00%Total98100.0%Mean(Std.Error)4.429(0.151)Std.Deviation1.500 43MEASURING THE ECO

265、NOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEAcknowledgementsSupport for this survey from the Linux Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.Visiting Scholar Qi Cao of Jilin University provided excellent research support.Adriana Macias,Tristan Gaspi,and Mehdi Montakhabi assisted in the development of the survey sample.Us

266、eful comments and suggestions were received from Hilary Carter,Irving Wladawsky-Berger,Maria Roche,Mike Dolan,Stephen Walli,Stephen Hendrick,and the Linux Foundation Research Advisory Board.Thanks also to Knut Blind and Sachiko Muto for sharing the results of the earlier survey on OSS adoption in th

267、e E.U.All remaining errors are mine alone.About the author Henry Chesbrough is best known as“the father of open innovation”.He teaches at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley,where he is the faculty director of the Garwood Center for Corporate Innovation.He is also Ma

268、ire Tecnimont Professor of Open Innovation and Sustainability at Luiss University in Rome.Previously he was an assistant professor at Harvard Business School.He holds a PhD from UC Berkeley,an MBA from Stanford,and a BA from Yale University.He has written books such as Open Innovation(Harvard Busine

269、ss School Press,2003),Open Business Models(Harvard Business School Press,2006),Open Services Innovation(Jossey-Bass,2011),and Open Innovation Results(Oxford,2020).His research has been cited more than 100,000 times,according to Google Scholar.He has been recognized as one of the leading business thi

270、nkers by Thinkers50 several times.He received an Innovation Luminary award from the European Commission in 2014.He received the Industrial Research Institute Medal of Achievement in 2017,the Viipuri Prize from Lappeenranta University of Technology in 2022,the Herbert Simon Award of the Rajk College

271、for Advanced Studies in 2022,and holds two honorary doctorates.44MEASURING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPEN SOURCEEndnotes1 This section draws from the recent case study of the Linux Foundation,“Leading Through Influence at Scale:Open Source Security at the Linux Foundation,”Product#:B6019-PDF-ENG,by Henr

272、y Chesbrough.2 https:/opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=libr_pubs3 Other open source umbrella foundations include the Apache Software Foundation,the Mozilla Foundation,and the Eclipse Foundation,and their models of governing open source are similar.Some of the most commo

273、nly used open source licenses include various versions of the GNU General Public License,the Mozilla Public License,and the Apache License.4 For an analysis of the strategic value of OSS in a firms innovation strategy,see West and Gallagher(2006)and Zemlin(2022).5 Considerable academic research has

274、explained how and why these volunteers create such software.For reviews of such research,see von Krogh and von Hippel(2006)and von Krogh et al.(2012).6 See Hilary Carter(2023)for an extended discussion of this approach to valuing OSS.Irving Wladawsky-Berger has observed that measuring the often inta

275、ngible benefits of using OSS are similar to the challenges in measuring the value of services more generally.See his recent blog entry,“The Current State of Service Science.”7 We appreciate Maria Roches comment here to highlight the fact that this sample skews toward larger firms in comparison with

276、the earlier E.U.survey.In her view,the results reported here likely understate the value of OSS to smaller firms,which is quite consistent with the results reported in the E.U.study(2021).8 As Stephen Walli has observed,companies estimates of these counterfactual costs are likely understating the ac

277、tual time and cost that these companies would require to replace the OSS functionality,in part because the companies assume that they have idle software developer capacity to immediately start the project.If they lack this capacity and instead need to hire additional resources,that additional cost a

278、nd time would increase the actual cost to replace the functionality.9 However,this greater precision is at least partially offset by the reduction in the number of respondents,as this question required a level of detailed knowledge that many respondents simply did not possess.10 As commentator Nithy

279、a Ruff has observed,it is difficult for companies to measure quantitatively the value of allowing their employees to give back to the underlying code base.This likely limits the extent of such support for the OSS code.11 As Melissa Evers commented,firms that rely on OSS take on the risky assumption

280、that there will be committed maintainers for the code because adopters of OSS are highly dependent on that maintenance being supplied going forward.Founded in 2021,Linux Foundation Research explores the growing scale of open source collaboration,providing insight into emerging technology trends,best

281、 practices,and the global impact of open source projects.Through leveraging project databases and networks,and a commitment to best practices in quantitative and qualitative methodologies,Linux Foundation Research is creating the go-to library for open source insights for the benefit of organization

282、s the world over.Copyright 2023 The Linux FoundationThis report is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.To reference this work,please cite as follows:Henry Chesbrough,“Measuring the Economic Value of Open Source:A Survey and a Preliminary Analysis,”foreword by Irving Wladawsky-Berger,The Linux Foundation,March 2023.