1. 5

Mozilla identified 10 archetypes of open source projects:

  • Business-to-Business (B2B) Open Source (e.g. Android, Chromium)
  • Multi-Vendor Infrastructure (e.g. Kubernetes, Open Stack)
  • Rocket Ship To Mars (e.g. Meteor, Signal)
  • Controlled Ecosystem (e.g. WordPress, Drupal)
  • Wide Open (e.g. Rust, Apache HTTPD)
  • Mass Market (e.g. Firefox, LibreOffice, MediaWiki)
  • Specialty Library (e.g. libssl, libmp4)
  • Trusted Vendor (e.g. MongoDB, Hypothes.is, Coral)
  • Upstream Dependency (e.g. OpenSSL, WebKit)
  • Bathwater: “code dumped over the wall” / “someone publishes code under a free license”
    (apparently, they are still looking for examples)

The classification provide a short description and a simple scheme to classify each project given “Licensing”, “Community standards”, “Component coupling”, “Main benefits” and “Typical governance”.

  1.  

  2. 3

    Actually, I’m proud to dump my operating system over the wall.

    I hack in good company, after all.

    1. 3

      Also, the actually report is at: https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MZOTS_OS_Archetypes_report_ext_scr.pdf

      This link is just to a preface of sorts

      1. 2

        This is great. Now I possess new language to describe those “open source in name only” projects that I dislike so much.

        1. 0

          Actually, most free software is classified as Bathwater.

          I guess this was intentional, as the whole point of open source was to work around the ethical values of the Free Software movement and use source availability as a marketing tool.

          1. 3

            Hi again, Shamar!

            Does the word ‘actually’ really need to be in your post?

            I thought about saying “free software in name only”, but actually the projects in question don’t call themselves free software.

            I guess you are reminding me that “open source” isn’t diminished by B2B and Rocket To Mars projects, because the “open source” term itself is already a diminished version of “free software”. I know, I know!

            FWIW, I think most free software I actually use falls into the Wide Open category (as Debian packages, there are lists and repos and people, even if the upstream lacks those) while most of the software I fork and build myself are Bathwater projects (otherwise, I’d use the existent packages!).