skip to main content
10.1145/3424771.3424791acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseuroplopConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Industry Best Practices for Component Approval in FLOSS Governance

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 December 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Increasingly companies realize the value of using free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) in their products, but need to manage the associated risks. Leading companies introduce open source governance as a solution. A key aspect of corporate FLOSS governance deals with choosing and evaluating open source components for use in products. Following an industry-based research approach, we present 13 best practices in the pattern format of context-problem-solutions paired with consequences. In this paper, we cover an excerpt of the Component Approval section of our FLOSS governance handbook. This article builds upon our previous EuroPLoP publication covering Component Reuse in FLOSS governance processes, as well as other publications on the topic. Analyzing qualitative data gathered from 15 expert interviews, we derive and interconnect the common industry recommendations for reviewing, tracking, and approving open source components in a company environment. We conclude by presenting workflow templates that put various best practices in relation to each other.

References

  1. Ardagna, C. A., Banzi, M., Damiani, E., & Frati, F.: Implementing open source software governance in real software assurance processes. In International Conference of Software Business. Springer, 103--114 (2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Berglund, E., Priestley, M.: Open-source documentation: in search of user-driven, just-in-time writing. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. ACM, 132--141 (2001)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, A. W., Booch, G.: Reusing open source software and practices: The impact of open-source on commercial vendors. In International Conference on Software Reuse. Springer, 123--136 (2002)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Fendt, O., Jaeger, M., & Serrano, R. J.: Industrial experience with open source software process management. In 2016 IEEE 40th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), volume 2. IEEE, 180--185 (2016)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Fichman, R. G., Kemerer, C. F.: The Assimilation of Software Process Innovations: An Organizational Learning Perspective, Management Science (43:10), 1345--1363 (1997)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fink, A.: Analysis of qualitative surveys. In: The survey handbook, 61--78. SAGE Publications, California (2003)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Fitzgerald, B.: The transformation of open source software. MIS Quarterly, 587--598 (2006)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. German, D. & Di Penta, M.: A method for open source license compliance of java applications. IEEE Software, 29(3), 58--63 (2012)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Glynn, E., Fitzgerald, B., & Exton, C.: Commercial adoption of open source software: an empirical study. In 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering: IEEE (2005)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Guba, E. G.: Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. In: Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75 - 91 (1981)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Harutyunyan, N., Bauer, A., & Riehle, D.: Industry requirements for FLOSS governance tools to facilitate the use of open source software in commercial products. Journal of Systems and Software, 158 (2019)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Harutyunyan, N., Bauer, A., Riehle, D.: Understanding Industry Requirements for FLOSS Governance Tools. In: IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems, 151--167 (2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Harutyunyan, N., Riehle, D., & Sathya, G.: Industry Best Practices for Corporate Open Sourcing. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2020)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Harutyunyan, N., Riehle, D.: Getting started with open source governance and compliance in companies. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Open Collaboration. ACM, 1--10 (2019)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Harutyunyan, N., Riehle, D.: Industry best practices for open source governance and component reuse. In Proceedings of the 24th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, 1--14 (2019)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauge, Ø., Ayala, C., & Conradi, R.: Adoption of open source software in software-intensive organizations-a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(11), 1133--1154 (2010)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jansen, H.: The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(2) (2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Koltun, P.: Free and open source software compliance: An operational perspective. IFOSS L. Rev., 3 (2011)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Link, C.: Patterns for the commercial use of open source: legal and licensing aspects. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. ACM (2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. López, L., Costal, D., Ayala, C. P., Franch, X., Annosi, M. C., Glott, R., & Haaland, K.: Adoption of oss components: a goal-oriented approach. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 99, 17--38 (2015)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Radcliffe, M., Odence, P.: The 2017 Open Source Year in Review. In: Black Duck Software, DLA Piper. (self-published presentation) (2017)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Riehle, D., Harutyunyan, N.: Open-Source License Compliance in Software Supply Chains. In Towards Engineering Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) Ecosystems for Impact and Sustainability. Springer, 83--95 (2019)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Riehle, D.: Lessons Learned from Using Design Patterns in Industry Projects. In: Transactions on Pattern Languages of Programming II, LNCS 6510. Springer-Verlag, 1--15 (2011)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Ruffin, C., Ebert, C.: Using open source software in product development: A primer. In: IEEE Software, 21(1), 82--86 (2004)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Weiss, M.: Profiting even more from open source. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. ACM (2012)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Weiss, M.: Profiting from open source. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. ACM (2010)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    EuroPLoP '20: Proceedings of the European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs 2020
    July 2020
    434 pages
    ISBN:9781450377690
    DOI:10.1145/3424771

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 17 December 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    EuroPLoP '20 Paper Acceptance Rate37of58submissions,64%Overall Acceptance Rate216of354submissions,61%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader