Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -13,9 +13,9 @@
13	13
14	14	= Description =
15	15
16		-After the various issues with crowd funding campaigns misleading the public related to open source software (think, Anonabox and Jolla Tablet), a [[small/simple survey>>attach:Crowdfunding.ods]] was undertaken on December 2014. The survey queried Kickstarter & Indiegogo on 12/20/2014...
	16	+After the various issues with crowd funding campaigns mis-informing the public related to the development/use of open source software ([[Anonabox>>url:http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/16/this-debunked-kickstarter-project-may-be-the-biggest-crowdfounding-fail-to-date/]] and [[Jolla Tablet>>url:http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2014/12/10/the-case-for-the-jolla-tablet/]]), a [[small/simple survey>>attach:Crowdfunding.ods]] was undertaken on December 2014. The survey queried Kickstarter & Indiegogo on 12/20/2014...
17	17
18		-{{code}}
	18	+{{code language="text"}}
19	19	Kickstarter search: Show me “Software” projects on “Earth” tagged with “#Open source” sorted by “newest”
20	20	Indiegogo: Search results for ""open source"" in "Technology"
21	21	Indiegogo: Search results for ""open source" "software"" in "Technology"
...	...	@@ -22,35 +22,24 @@
22	22	Indiegogo: Search results for ""open source"" "software"" in "Technology", "75% - 100+%"
23	23	{{/code}}
24	24
25		-...and found 85 projects asking for support in the development of "open source" or "open source software."
	25	+...and found 85 projects asking for support in the development of "open source" or "open source software." The total fund-raising goal for all 85 projects was $5,086,090, the total committed was $6,664,242. Of these 85 projects, 46 carried OSI Approved Open Source Licenses and 39 carried either none, or some other license (e.g. CC-BY-SA)—one was even proprietary. These 39 [[open-washing>>url:http://michellethorne.cc/2009/03/openwashing/]] / [[fauxpen>>url:http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/open-vs-fauxpen]] projects were seeking $2,397,050 and raised, $2,967,167 from almost 30,000 contributors ([[file attached>>attach:Crowdfunding.ods]]).
26	26
27		-The total fund raising goal for all 85 projects is $5,086,090, the total committed was $6,664,242.
	27	+While the above examples and sample data are limited, the OSI though this working group can engage with the broader open source community, as part of the OSI's mandate to protect open source while affirm the OSI's role as the stewards of the Open Source Definition. Such work would also help distinguish the OSI among those new to the open source software community, who may be unfamiliar with the organization's purpose and value: educating individuals, companies and other organizations about what open source software is, how it is licensed and how to assess authenticity.
28	28
29		-Of these 85 projects, 46 carried OSI approved licenses and 39 carried either none, or some other license (e.g. CC-BY-SA)~-~-one even was proprietary.
	29	+= Mission =
30	30
31		-These 39 open washing / fauxpen projects were seeking $2,397,050 and raised, $2,967,167 from almost 30,000 contributors (file attached).
	31	+* The working group will work with crowd-funding sites to raise awareness, develop policy and instill good practice to address, the ambiguity in, or mis-representation of projects seeking funding for projects promoted as open source software.
	32	+* The working group will also reach out to the technology media (letters to editors, comments to articles, original posts, etc.) explaining the issue and suggested approaches to help the press and general public understand the importance of and assess authenticity before promoting projects.
	33	+* The working group will promote this activity within the open source community as it highlights the OSI's value in promoting and protecting open source software licensing and development.
32	32
33		-I think there is a role for the OSI here.
34	34
35		-First, we should contact Kickstarter, Indiegogo and other crowd-funding sites to help them develop policy around claims of funding for open source projects. This would be a similar effort to working with GitHub on their open source licensing issues. Of course, this implies we should suggest to them a policy on what we believe to be best practices (can we do this?).
	36	+= Alignment to OSI Mission =
36	36
37		-Secondly, I think the OSI should reach out to the tech media (letters to editors pointing to a site explaining the issue and suggested approaches) to help them understand the importance of fact checking before promoting these projects. I'll add that just today, the Jolla Tablet and fauxpen SailfishOS was highlighted as how open source projects can succeed in crowd-funding efforts (Slide 3 at http:~/~/www.networkworld.com/article/2865755/opensource-subnet/why-crowdfunding-open-source-projects-isnt-as-easy-as-you-think.html ).
	38	+Education: Provides information and resources for three sectors of the open source software community: developers, how to authentically license and promote open source software; contributors, how to assess claims made by projects reporting to develop open source software; technology media, how to accurately describe and fact check open source software licenses in reporting.
38	38
39		-Third, we should promote this activity within the open source communtiy as it highlights the OSI's value in promoting and protecting open source software licensing and develop it. It will also provide us with evidence of practice in explaining our own value proposition~-~-think next year's Annual Report.
	40	+Protect: Authenticity in open source software projects promotes OSI Approved Licenses and the freedoms of the Open Source Definition. Ambiguity, mis-perception and deception threaten the integrity and reputation of the label "open source" and "open source software" reducing the trust in the OSD and the OSI by the public.
40	40
41		-I, as an individual, was going to do take this on with a follow up to the open-washing article in opensource.com. But I think it would be much more powerful~-~-and rightly positioned~-~-as an OSI effort.
42		-\\Comments?
43		-Patrick\\
44	44
45		-
46		-= Mission =
47		-
48		-The working group will work with crowd-funding sites to raise awareness, develop policy and instill good practice to address, the ambiguity in, or mis-representation of projects seeking funding for projects promoted as open source software.
49		-
50		-
51		-The working group will also reach out to the technology media (letters to editors, comments to articles, original posts, etc.) explaining the issue and suggested approaches to help the press and general public understand the importance of and assess authenticity before promoting projects.
52		-\\The working group will promote this activity within the open source community as it highlights the OSI's value in promoting and protecting open source software licensing and development.
53		-
54	54	= Communications =
55	55
56	56	The group will primarily communicate via the working group wiki page and related discussion forum.
...	...	@@ -70,5 +70,16 @@
70	70	1. Agreements with multiple crowd-funding sites to develop policy and good practice when invoking "open source," "open source software" and related terms in the projects they host.
71	71	1. Reference materials for those interested in supporting projects through crowd-funding to assess the authenticity of claims. (e.g. "Open-by-rule Benchmark, OSS Watch, Openness Index, etc.)
72	72
	62	+= Target Completion Date =
73	73
	64	+1. Call for participants: February 1, 2015
	65	+1. "OSI Recommendations for the Use of the Label, Open Source Software in Crowd-funding": March 1, 2015
	66	+1. Introduction to audience (Crowd-funding sites, Tech Media, open source community: April 1, 2015
	67	+1. Agreements with / responses to audience interest / participation: May 1, 2015
74	74
	69	+
	70	+= Ongoing OSI Support =
	71	+
	72	+It is expected that once the resources have been developed, distributed and implemented no further work will be needed. The OSI and/or this working group may choose to revisit and update the resources based on developments through time.
	73	+
	74	+