Open-source software (OSS) project tools, techniques, and the software itself are implemented by establishing three primary phases that make up the OSS process: product initiation, product execution, and product release. Within these three phases are sub-phases, tools, and techniques that contribute to the implementation and sustainability of OSS projects. This essay titled “Open-source Software Sustainability” will examine the pros and cons of these tools and techniques and see if OSS projects need to become proprietary in order to remain sustainable.
The tools and techniques typically used for implementing OSS projects consist of community and process models such hierarchical, motivational, and phase outlining; the use of short and long distance communication methods like email, instant messaging, or text messaging; a means of keeping track of software versions and revisions like concurrent version system control; testing and keeping track of software bugs through the use proprietary and open-source debugging services and tools; and software package management, allowing project members easy accessibility to updating, deleting, and replacing source code. But perhaps the most elemental tool to implementing and sustaining OSS projects is the community and process models which are at the basis of being able to coordinate and execute an OSS project effectively (Sharma, Srinarayan, Vijayan, Sugumaran, Balaji, Rajagopalan, 2002; Martinez-Torres, M.R., Diaz-Fernandez, M.C., 2014).
Sharma, Sugumaran, and Rajagopalan (2002) stated that a tool an OSS project requires for implementation and sustainability is the development of an OSS organizational structure or model commonly referred to as an OSS community. This community is generally based on the interconnected concepts of labor division, co-ordination mechanisms, distribution of decision-making authority, organizational boundaries, informal structure, political structure, and the legitimated basis of authority. Likewise, the process of implementation was built on a model consisting of governance process (the ability for OSS communities to sustain self-governance), and development process (the ability for OSS communities to prioritize and identify problems within the project and the community itself on a volunteer-based work system).
As a tool, the OSS community model and the OSS process model have their advantages in being able to identify how an OSS project team works hierarchically through primarily volunteer work. If a proprietary company, for example, ever sought to collaborate with volunteers on a non-proprietary project version being put out by the proprietary company itself for the sake of minimizing overhead cost and maximizing OSS project development, having some semblance of what the project team consists of and how the process of that project functions will have helped a project manager identify and implement success factors that will contribute to the OSS project’s sustainability. But as beneficial as it is to follow an OSS community and process model, there remain many variables that need to be accounted for a project be implemented and sustained using these models as tools for success.
The disadvantage of the models as tools for success is that they have never wholly reliable in every OSS project. Martinez-Torres and Diaz-Fernandez (2014) point out in their paper titled “Current issues and research trends on open-source software communities” that the development of OSS communities in the last decade is a phenomenon that contradicts traditional business theories and practices. They maintain a simple existence highly immersed in the world of electronic media facilitating and disseminating substantial amounts of information. But as successful as OSS projects have become, there is still the problem of consistently identifying motivating factors behind the altruistic nature of OSSs.
Although other researchers have published studies that point toward motivating factors, they never remain consistent enough to implement with certainty throughout different OSS projects. Martinez-Torres and Diaz-Fernandez (2014) state, “Simply establishing a community does not necessarily mean that individuals will be attracted to become members, or that their interests will be sustained over time …the relationship of the organization with the communities is an important aspect to be considered by business managers.” The emphasis here is on the mutability of motivation and need for proprietary business and OSS communities to maintain communication for the benefit both. This leads to another question of OSS sustainability, must a company purchase software to complete the job?
The answer to this is in understanding that both proprietary and OSSs can benefit from one another and if purchasing the software to complete the job is in the best interest of the OSS then this is an effective solution to maintain its sustainability. As Martinez-Torres and Diaz-Fernandez (2014) also point out, “… most real-world systems fall between two extremes, open-source and proprietary software … firms are now working to incorporate what they perceive to be the best elements of both models in their broader strategies, leading to hybrid business models.” OSSs have been shown to be capable of sustainability with little or no proprietary input. But it is best implemented with a combination of both proprietary and voluntary efforts, using the tools and techniques that have been described in this paper, to get the most from an OSS project both innovatively and economically.
