Slashdot Mirror
Assuring Users When Closed Software Becomes Open?
joeldg asks: "I just recently decided to go open source with a project I have been doing for some time. After initially going open source I have had an avalanche of questions from users about what 'Open Source' means and how it will affect them. Many are scared of the implications and the broad new sweeping changes others could make in the project. My question is how do you alleviate the fears of over 5,000 dedicated users and get them to accept the idea of the project going open source and also keep some track of the project so that you can direct the current userbase to new sites running the code?"
Write a FAQ like every other open source project in the world
I would think that by now, you could show how many different projects have been very successfull with the Open Source model, and there hasn't been a problem of just any user doing what ever they want. Simply show the system in effect.
It means you have released your soucre and they (or anyone) can do with it as they please [BSD], or they must keep the source open to their customers while doing with it what they please [GPL].
Someone still controls the original project. Going open source just means that the software will have a broader developer base, thus more features quicker.
Or am I missing something?
I have had an avalanche of questions from users about what 'Open Source' means and how it will affect them. Many are scared of the implications....
Sometimes, people don't believe a thing's valuable unless they have to pay for it. (And often with good reason; ad-ware's a case in point.)
Some other people don't feel they have any control over you, without having paid you, and thus having something (theoretically) to sue about.
So offer to sell these doubters a support contract, or specialized installation or customization.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
"As long as you use MY version, it's the same as closed-source, except that I receive contributions more readily, and can't start charging you for it [or you'd get my version elsewhere]. But if I start fucking you over and my version starts sucking, because I'm trying to limit what you're able to do, then you can find a version of MY SOFTWARE that doesn't include my fucking you over, and it's totally legit. Imagine if Microsoft had to deal with the idea that if they did things to alienate their users, their users would run not simply WINE, which is okay at running SOME windows programs, but WINDOWS ITSELF, only without the crippling antifeatures. At the most basic level, open source means that if your "benign dictatorship" isn't all that benign, they can get the same dictatorship with all the benignity they want, for FREE, elsewhere. It's democracy. It's Freedom. It's.... OPEN SOURCE."
I think that it probably important to let them know that even though the source is now available, not just anybody will be allowed to access the "official" version. You are still the gatekeeper, and what gets done to the code goes through first.
When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
From the looks of things, you're not just releasing the sources but also getting away from hosting the system. I'd imagine that users are going to be a lot more concerned about who is doing the hosting from this point on than how the software is distributed.
One possibility would be to keep a page with a list of sites that offer the service. A nice plus would be to keep track of user ratings as well -- maybe even keep hosting one board (on your own site or even on SF) where users can discuss and review the options.
It would help to have a real summary of what the project is on the SourceForge Summary page. The way you have the Summary page set up now, when your (probably not-quite-as-geeky-as-you) users look at the pointer you provide them to SourceForge, they are going to be overwhelmed by how technical and intimidating it all looks.
I've seen a lot of SourceForge (and other, for that matter) projects that have this same issue. When you go to the Summary page to try to figure out what a project is all about, it instead says something like: Updated new version to fix build issues. Which is almost exactly the kind of content you have on yours now. Not very informative, and not very reassuring to normal users who tend to fear the unknown.
So while this would help your case a lot, I think it is also good advice in general for all SourceForge project owners: Write a blurb that clearly explains what your project is about! Hope this helps.
Due to overwhelming requests and inquiries about specialized customization and personal control over the boards, we've decided to go one step further with our goal to do more than everyone else out there: Open Source
Maybe, if that's what you are planning to do, you should explain clearly that you or - qboard.org - will always be the source for downloading "your version" and that qboard being open source only makes your possibilities for providing new and consistent features with potentially less effort. Explain, that you will still keep control of this one release althought there might be others as well - which might be suitable for some. You are just opening new possibilities, this should not be anything to fear of - if everything looks and is under control.
if you have a lot of questions, start a FAQ and refer folks to it.. it's been suggested b4 and it's a good suggestion.
:) also you will expect comment from your particular community on howto improve your code.
my subject line asks a decent question tho'.. and I'm guessing that's what most of your questions get back to.
From a customer's point of view, open source means several things:
It is a quality assurance. You're obviously confident enough to show the world how good your code is
It is additional coding resource to get jobs done quicker.
It is control for your customer in that they can use your code as a toolkit to build features that they would otherwise not be available.
It doesn't remove you as the project controller and you still maintain the same control over the released code as before.
Note that I am assuming that although the qboard project is winding down, you or your team will still be 'controlling' qboard's path?
The important point is that Open Source does not mean anyone can make random changes to the sourcecode. It means that anyone can suggest changes to the sourcecode. You are offcourse free to accept or reject them as you see fit.
To the customers, there is absolutely no disadvantages whatsoever to this arrangement, and a metric ton of advantages. This should be easy to explain.
oss only pretends to be in free community; control of projects is far from democratic (or other insert-free-ruling-system-here) ... in fact, it's very much despotic.
you are dictator of your project, everything goes through you before finalization. if you so chose, only your updates will see the project page. anything else would be an offshoot and possibly not even recognized in any of your official documents.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I think they are right to have some fears. When a project goes open source the number of people looking at the code jumps significantly, and therefore the potential number of bugs / security holes that could be found. It is likely that the current version of their software will need to be updated quickly to reflect patches to the holes.
I'm certainly not saying that going open source is a Bad Thing, just that does have short term negative consequences for users.
------
__mmmmmmmmmmmm_ katrina galleries grumble grumble grumble
When told of the project's move to open source, Source Busters was called:
PETER
You could accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
MAYOR
What do you mean, biblical?
RAY
What he means is Old Testament biblical, Mr. Mayor. Real wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
EGON
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes! Volcanoes!
WINSTON
The dead rising from the grave!
PETER
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
-- Sorry, I could't resist!
I also had a popular closed source project that went Open Source. I think people are naturally resistant to change, and unlike a project that was Open Source form the beginning, a lot of your users probably aren't very familiar with Open Source. I think the biggest thing is to give the whole thing time. I had a few good contributors/users fall away when I made the switch, and I got a lot of protests from other users, but in the end the project is much healthier in the Open Source world. Once people started to realize that Open Source isn't a big evil concept (well, not too evil, anyway) they started to come back, and a whole new crowd also joined in. The whole process took about a year, but it was well worth it in the end.
Now many of the same people who were opposed to Open Source in the beginning are actually contributing code to the project now.