Several methods have been created to define an assessment process for free/open-source software. Some focus on some aspects like the maturity, the durability and the strategy of the organisation around the open-source project itself. Other methodologies add functional aspects to the assessment process.
There are more than 20 different OSS evaluation methods. [1]
Stol and Babar have proposed a comparison framework for OSS evaluation methods. Their framework lists criteria in four categories: criteria related to the context in which the method is to be used, the user of the method, the process of the method, and the evaluation of the method (e.g., its validity and maturity stage).
The comparison presented below is based on the following (alternative set of) criteria:
Criteria | OSMM Capgemini | OSMM Navica | QSOS | OpenBRR | OpenBQR [4] | OpenSource Maturity Model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seniority | 2003 | 2004 | 2004 | 2005 | 2007 | 2008 |
Original authors/sponsors | Capgemini | Navicasoft | Atos Origin | Carnegie Mellon Silicon Valley, SpikeSource, O'Reilly, Intel | University of Insubria | QualiPSo project, EU commission |
License | Non-free license, but authorised distribution | Assessment models licensed under the Academic Free License | Methodology and assessments results licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License | Assessments results licensed under a Creative Commons license | Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License | Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License |
Assessment model | Practical | Practical | Practical | Scientific | Practical | Scientific |
Detail levels | 2 axes on 2 levels | 3 levels | 3 levels or more (functional grids) | 2 levels | 3 levels | 3 levels |
Predefined criteria | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Technical/functional criteria | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Scoring model | Flexible | Flexible | Strict | Flexible | Flexible | Flexible |
Scoring scale by criterion | 1 to 5 | 1 to 10 | 0 to 2 | 1 to 5 | 1 to 5 | 1 to 4 |
Iterative process | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Criteria weighting | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Comparison | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
Several methods have been created to define an assessment process for free/open-source software. Some focus on some aspects like the maturity, the durability and the strategy of the organisation around the open-source project itself. Other methodologies add functional aspects to the assessment process.
There are more than 20 different OSS evaluation methods. [1]
Stol and Babar have proposed a comparison framework for OSS evaluation methods. Their framework lists criteria in four categories: criteria related to the context in which the method is to be used, the user of the method, the process of the method, and the evaluation of the method (e.g., its validity and maturity stage).
The comparison presented below is based on the following (alternative set of) criteria:
Criteria | OSMM Capgemini | OSMM Navica | QSOS | OpenBRR | OpenBQR [4] | OpenSource Maturity Model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seniority | 2003 | 2004 | 2004 | 2005 | 2007 | 2008 |
Original authors/sponsors | Capgemini | Navicasoft | Atos Origin | Carnegie Mellon Silicon Valley, SpikeSource, O'Reilly, Intel | University of Insubria | QualiPSo project, EU commission |
License | Non-free license, but authorised distribution | Assessment models licensed under the Academic Free License | Methodology and assessments results licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License | Assessments results licensed under a Creative Commons license | Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License | Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License |
Assessment model | Practical | Practical | Practical | Scientific | Practical | Scientific |
Detail levels | 2 axes on 2 levels | 3 levels | 3 levels or more (functional grids) | 2 levels | 3 levels | 3 levels |
Predefined criteria | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Technical/functional criteria | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Scoring model | Flexible | Flexible | Strict | Flexible | Flexible | Flexible |
Scoring scale by criterion | 1 to 5 | 1 to 10 | 0 to 2 | 1 to 5 | 1 to 5 | 1 to 4 |
Iterative process | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Criteria weighting | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Comparison | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |