Summit 16: Bridging Open Source & Open Standards - Oma Survey Results

June 20–23, 2016 | Berlin, Germany

Survey Results: Bridging the Gap Between Open Standards and Open Source

Elizabeth Rose, Open Mobile Alliance

OMA’s Motivation

• Two years ago, OMA started on a journey to understand how it could improve adoption of its service-layer specifications.

• Very quickly we found that Developers are key to widespread adoption.

• We began to create an ecosystem of tools and collaboration around our specifications that allowed for Developers to implement the specifications more easily.

• https://github.com/OpenMobileAlliance/OMA_LwM2M_for_Developers/wiki

• We also ran into the fact that the Developer community is highly oriented toward open source code, projects, tools and associations.

• We launched the survey in an attempt to find better data about how our traditional telco-oriented members are approaching Open Source and how that direction compares to a wider sample.

https://github.com/OpenMobileAlliance/OMA_LwM2M_for_Developers/wiki

Survey background

• The purpose of the survey is to help OMA understand the role Open Source Software and Open Source Associations play in our industry.

• Understand prevailing attitudes regarding Open Source and Open Standards.

• Examine what (if anything) OMA should be doing to better serve its members and the industry at large in relation to Open Source projects.

• The survey population:• The industry at large as serviced by the OMA marketing database and social

media

• Survey responses – 419 individual responses including hundreds of text-based, open-ended answers.

• A summary of the survey will be available on the OMA website and will be sent to those who participated in the survey

Public Survey OMA membership breakdown

22%

55%

23%

Is your company a member of the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA)?

Yes No I don't know

Sampling of companies of respondents

Copyright © 2016 Open Mobile Alliance Ltd. All rights reserved.

Companies of respondents

12%

9%

11%

28%

40%

Indicate your company's primary business:

Mobile operator Network equipment vendor

Mobile device vendor Software developer

Other (please specify)

Open Standards definition

99%

1%Agree

Disagree

Open Standards are best defined as documents made available to the general public, which are developed (or approved) and maintained via a managed, collaborative, transparent, and consensus-driven process. "Open Standards" facilitate interoperability and data exchange among different products or services and are intended for widespread adoption. (adapted from ITU-T definition)

98%

2% Agree

Disagree

Open Source projects definition


Public

Open Source projects are best defined as

programs in which the source code is

available to the general public for use

and/or modification from its original design

that is made available under an open

source license. Open source code is

typically created as a collaborative effort in

which programmers improve upon the code

and often share the changes among the

programming community for such projects.

At a high level, open source licenses allow

users the freedom to use, modify, and

distribute the source code without requiring

any further permissions.

OS Project participation

52%25%

23%

Is your company participating in Open Source communities or projects that are relevant to Telecommunications or IOT?

Yes No Not Sure


If your company is participating in Open Source associations that are relevant to Telecommunications or IOT, please indicate which ones below:

Open Daylight

OpenStack

OPNFV

Open Connectivity Foundation (OIC)

AllSeen

Eclipse Foundation


0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Op

en

Da

ylig

ht

Op

en

Sta

ck

OP

NF

V

Op

en

Co

nn

ectivity

Fo

un

da

tio

n(O

IC)

AllS

ee

n

Eclip

se

Fo

un

da

tio

n

N/A

Oth

er

(ple

ase

sp

ecify)

If your company is participating in Open Source associations that are relevant to Telecommunications or IOT, please

indicate which ones below:


41%

37%

19%

3%

How would you characterize your participation in these organizations?

We actively make contributions/pull requests to the code base.We are monitoring the progress of the code base.Our participation is more strategic than operational.We do not participate at all.


In your opinion, what are your company's goals within these organizations? Check all that apply:

• Accelerate time to market for products/services

• Facilitate interoperability with other products/services

• Actively participate in the development of the code base

• Developer enablement

• Monitor technology advancement

• None

• Other (please specify)


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Acce

lera

te t

ime

to m

ark

et

for

pro

du

cts

/se

rvic

es

Fa

cili

tate

inte

rop

era

bili

tyw

ith

oth

er

products/servic…

Active

lyp

art

icip

ate

in

th

ed

eve

lop

me

nt

of

the

co

de

ba

se

De

ve

lop

er

en

ab

lem

en

t

Mo

nito

rte

ch

no

log

ya

dva

nce

me

nt

No

ne

Oth

er

(ple

ase

sp

ecify)

In your opinion, what are your company's goals within these organizations? Check all that apply:

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

My company participates actively in traditional standards bodies:

Standards bodies participation


Public

• W3C, IETF and ETSI most often cited as adopting policies to accommodate open source software


57%

2%

29%

12%

Is your company's participation in Open Source organizations increasing, decreasing, or steady?

Increasing Decreasing Steady Don't know

Telecom & IOT Services trends

• Machine to Machine / IOT products and implementations will

• rely heavily on Open Source implementations

• rely heavily on Open Standards based implementations

• rely heavily on proprietary implementations

• Next Gen Telecom / NFV network products and implementations will

• rely heavily on Open Source implementations

• rely heavily on Open Standards based implementations

• rely heavily on proprietary implementations

Please give your opinion on the following statements:

Telecom & IOT Services trends

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ma

ch

ine

to

Ma

ch

ine

/IO

T p

rod

ucts

an

dim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns w

illre

ly h

ea

vily

on

Op

en

So

urc

eim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

Ma

ch

ine

to

Ma

ch

ine

/IO

T p

rod

ucts

an

dim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns w

illre

ly h

ea

vily

on

Op

en

Sta

nd

ard

s b

ase

dim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

Ma

ch

ine

to

Ma

ch

ine

/IO

T p

rod

ucts

an

dim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns w

illre

ly h

ea

vily

on

pro

pri

eta

ryim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

Ne

xt

Ge

n T

ele

co

m /

NF

V n

etw

ork

pro

du

cts

an

d im

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

will

re

ly h

ea

vily

on

Op

en

So

urc

eim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

Ne

xt

Ge

n T

ele

co

m /

NF

V n

etw

ork

pro

du

cts

an

d im

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

will

re

ly h

ea

vily

on

Op

en

Sta

nd

ard

sbased…

Ne

xt

Ge

n T

ele

co

m /

NF

V n

etw

ork

pro

du

cts

an

d im

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

will

re

ly h

ea

vily

on

pro

pri

eta

ryim

ple

me

nta

tio

ns

Please give your opinion on the following statements:

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

N/A

Telecom Services trend

In the scope of telecom services deployment, what do you think will be the dominant trend in the next several years?

• Proprietary implementations of non standard specifications

• Proprietary implementations of open standards specifications

• Open source implementations of open standards specifications

• Open source implementations not using open standards


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Proprietaryimplementation of

non standardspecifications

Proprietaryimplementations

of open standardsspecifications

Open sourceimplementations


Open sourceimplementationsnot using open

standards


Increase

Decrease

Stable

No Opinion

RAND + Open Source

36%

4%60%

Do you believe that RAND based specifications can be successfully implemented into Open Source projects?

Yes No Not sure

Complexity and incompatibility of licensing terms often cited as the biggest hurdle.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Proprietaryimplementation of

non standardspecifications

Proprietaryimplementations


Open sourceimplementations


Open sourceimplementationsnot using open

standards


Increase

Decrease

Stable

No Opinion

Open Standards + Open Source

Agree70%

Neutral20%

Disagree10%

Open Standards play an entirely different role than Open Source


Agree80%Disagree

3%

Neutral17%

The Open Standards community would benefit from a closer relationship to the Open Source community

• Early open source implementations of standards can provide feedback to improve the standard• Open source implementations help with dissemination and proliferation of the standard

Agree77%

Disagree19%

Neutral4%

The Open Source community would benefit from a closer relationship to the Open Standards community.



Public

• Open Standards can help open source communities with overall architecture and system design considerations, quality, interoperability and roadmap.

Question for Operators


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

We

dep

loy

Op

enSo

urc

e so

ftw

are

ino

ur

net

wo

rks

Ou

r n

etw

ork

ish

ost

ed in

an

Op

enSo

urc

e en

able

d C

lou

d

Op

en S

ou

rce

soft

war

e w

ill p

lay

anin

crea

sin

gly

imp

ort

ant

role

in o

ur

pro

cure

men

t…

Op

en S

ou

rce

rep

rese

nts

an

op

po

rtu

nit

y to

sign

ific

antl

y d

ecre

ase

op

erat

ing

cost

s

Op

en S

ou

rce

soft

war

e cr

eate

s th

ep

ote

nti

al f

or

risk

san

d w

e av

oid

usi

ng

itin

mis

sio

n c

riti

cal…

We

rely

on

ou

rve

nd

ors

to

mit

igat

ean

y ri

sks

asso

ciat

edw

ith

Op

en S

ou

rce

cod

e an

d w

e d

o n

ot…

Op

en S

ou

rce

soft

war

e ad

op

tio

n is

a w

ork

-in

-pro

gres

san

d w

e al

low

it in

ou

rn

etw

ork

wit

h c

auti

on

We

do

no

t u

se O

pen

Sou

rce

in o

ur

pro

du

cts

Agree Neutral Disagree

Please give your opinion on which statements most accurately reflect your understanding of your company's approach to deploying Open Source software

Open ended questions

What are the inhibitors to adoption of Open Source implementations?

• Issues surrounding licensing (esp. GPL)

• Industry understanding of Open Source licensing

• Competitive issues and fragmentation

• Security

• Quality and robustness

• Maintenance and support

OMA’s Steps

• OMA has taken some specific steps to make its specifications easier for Developers to consume.

• Developer Focused Specifications and Tools• LwM2M device management protocol for constrained devices (esp. IoT)

• Developer Toolkit is available on GitHubhttps://github.com/OpenMobileAlliance/OMA_LwM2M_for_Developers/wiki

• GotAPI a secure framework for smartphone web apps to access external devices and internal apps through Web-standard technologies supported by major Web browsers and smartphone platforms

• NTT DOCOMO provides Open Source Plug-ins with device WebAPIs available at https://github.com/DeviceConnect

• Licensing• OMA produces technical specifications that may contain RAND IPR.

• OMA also produces supporting documents that are designed to make implementations (code) easier to produce. These documents contain .dtd, .xsd, .xml.

• OMA has agreed to license the supporting documents under a BSD-3 license. The license does include a pointer to OMA IPR declarations.

• The goal is to make supporting documents easier to distribute and hopefully more valuable to developers.

https://github.com/OpenMobileAlliance/OMA_LwM2M_for_Developers/wiki

https://github.com/DeviceConnect

OMA’s Steps

•We would love to hear from you!

•Want to respond to the survey and share your opinions?•See https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/OSSurveyR2

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/OSSurveyR2

Summit 16: Bridging Open Source & Open Standards - Oma Survey Results

Technology

Transcript of Summit 16: Bridging Open Source & Open Standards - Oma Survey Results