Ana Belen Martinez Soto B01303121

Open Source: Salvation or Suicide?

Should Marty Dirweg open Amp Ups´ source code to users and external
developers or keep the product closed?

Amp Up, a highly popular electronic game music is the work of programmers
appreciated KMS, who now spend their time trying to keep clients amazed with
their new versions. But a couple of start-ups have copied the idea using your own
open source. They are now demanding that the tide KMS climb on up the open
source community. How could the company make money without your
intellectual property? Why should she try? Four experts comment on this fictional
case.

Jonathan Schwartz, CEO of Sun Microsystems, says that if KMS is confident

about what the consumer is expecting for the future product, also if KMS know
how it will beneficiate to the public in numbers, it can be large or small. But his
reputation will pay the price.

Eric Levin, executive vice president of Techno Source, suggests that KMS take a
middle path: license its software to other companies, and add features that
promote community building. This approach could be financed only through
royalties and fees and allow KMS approve or veto third party products.

Gary P. Pisano, Harvard Business School, points out that an open source
strategy could increase the rate of improvement of Amp Up, boost customer
satisfaction and reduce game development costs of KMS. But if the company
fails to compete on the basis of your code, KMS had better make sure the
strengths of its operational capabilities.

Michael J. Bevilacqua, of the law firm WilmerHale, warns that if KMS joins the
open source community risks serious harm for violating intellectual property,
because there is no guarantee that the codes do not violate the IP rights of
someone else and no provider offers compensation.

My opinion
First of all I needed to look out the definition of open source, because I didn’t
know and I found this: The term "open source" refers to something that can be
modified because its design is publicly accessible. After I can understand better
the case study.

I find it really interesting to examine an open-source case study. The open-

source model is on the radar outside of our community. In these we can find a
case that illustrates the pros and cons of going open source.
I´m disappointed with the authors took a very to-down approach (through eyes of
upper management), what about the developer´s perspective. I think the
developers would have another perspective, better insight as to what would work
best for the consumers because they work to fulfill their necessities.

Also, I liked Sun's Jonathan Schwartz and the professor Gary Pisano were great
picks with realistic insights, the other I´m not at all convinced. Furthermore, we
need to consider everything from potential liability risks to more strategic issues
once intellectual property is no longer protected internally.

Operating systems and Desktop environments

▪ Linux - Operating system kernel
▪ Ubuntu - Linux distribution with full compliment of software for everyday
use.
▪ Google Chrome OS - Lightweight operating system based around the web
browser
▪ Android smart-phone operating system - by Google / Open Handset Alliance
▪ Symbian smart-phone operating system - by Nokia
▪ MeeGo smart-phone operating system - joint venture between Intel and
Nokia
▪ BSD - Operating system
▪ Darwin - The core of Apple's Mac OS X operating system
▪ GNOME desktop environment for Linux (and Unix)
▪ KDE desktop environment for Linux (and Unix)
Xfce lightweight desktop environment for Linux (and Unix)

Here we can see some important open sources that I didn’t know and they are
really important. To have an open source is important because it improves
user´s satisfaction, also the cost and efforts of developing new software might be
reduced, etc.

Final conclusion: The open source route presents opportunities for a proprietary
company like KMS, but there are dangers, legal as well as commercial.