Presentation - SEDC Conference 2014

Report
UNCLASSIFIED
Increasing Market Share
with
Open Source Solutions
April 04, 2014
Authors:





Marcus D. Edwards, Systems Architect
Christopher J. Morris, Software Engineer
Dustin D. Baumgartner, Engineer
Janine M. Brown, Systems Architect
Robert D. Siegel, Fellow Engineer
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Acknowledgements
• We wish to thank the Northrop Grumman Corporation for its continued
support and guidance through the years.
2
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Agenda
• Increasing Market Share with Open Source Solution (OSS) Overview
• OSS Case Studies
• OSS Information Assurance (IA) & Licensing Considerations
• OSS Benefits & Challenges
• OSS Systems Engineering (SE) Process
• Increasing Market Share with OSS
3
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Increasing Market Share OSS Overview
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
IMS OSS Briefing Scope
OSS Mission
Business
Cases
Requirements
OSS Current
State
OSS Key
Players
OSS DoD
Guidance
NG Interests
OSS Success
Case Studies
OSS Misuse
Case Studies
Analysis of
Alternatives
(AoA)
OSS Licensing
Considerations
OSS Benefits
& Challenges
OSS Training
OSS IA
Concerns
OSS IP &
Legal
Concerns
OSS
Classification
OSS Reuse
OSS Elements
of Success
OSS SE
Process
Increasing NG
Market Share
The Complete OSS Storyboard
5
Topic of Primary Focus
Topic of Secondary Focus
De-Scoped Topic
UNCLASSIFIED
Logical Link
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS Mission Statement
The Department of Defense (DoD) is advocating for the more frequent use of Open
Source platforms and software. The use of Open Source allows for more capable
and agile DoD acquisition practices that reduce costs and improve schedule.
Consequently, the procurement practices of the DoD are evolving and requiring that
the business capture strategy of the defense industry evolve as well.
A number of companies have successfully integrated Open Source Solutions (OSS)
on both classified and unclassified systems. The integration of OSS early in the
systems development life cycle has proven to be critical to the success of these
programs. OSS rapidly advanced the system’s capabilities, reduced development
cost and improved schedule. The use of OSS has contributed to more profitable
company programs, product lines and ventures.
The OSS approach employs Systems Engineering principles to define a repeatable
OSS process with proven elements of success. The OSS Process will reduce risks
related to licensing, intellectual property and Information Assurance. A standardized
industry-adopted OSS Process will better position companies for expansion into
emerging markets built on the current and future needs of our customer.
OSS Leading Paradigm Shift in the Defense Industry
6
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
What is Open Source (OS)?
There are many OS definitions… The one that matters is defined by the DoD
7
UNCLASSIFIED
Data Reference (1)
UNCLASSIFIED
Google Android Case Study
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
The Rise and the Fall of Industry Titans
Case Study: Google Android
2005The Writings On The Wall
2011Black & Blue Berry
•
Google acquires Android, Inc.
•
BlackBerry Market Share decline ~150%
2007Nokia Controls the Market
•
Android 200% Growth
•
Android 47% Global Market Share
•
Symbian 64% Global Market Share
•
Apple iOS Unveiled
2012It’s New “Market”
•
2008Android As-We Know It
•
2013Too Little Too Late
Google Android Unveiled
2009The Apple Revolution
•
iOS 200% Growth
•
Android 4% Global Market Share
Android 600% Growth
•
Android 23% Global Market Share
•
Symbian converts to Open Source
•
Nokia drops Symbian
•
Android 65% Global Market Share
•
Market Annual Sales ~One Billion Units
2014The King Arrives
2010Google “Game Changer”
•
Android 59% Market Share
•
Registered Android devices top 1.3B globally
•
Microsoft rumored Open Source migration
Landscape of $250 Billion Industry Shifted Dramatically in 7 Years
9
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
The Rise of Android’s Global Market Share
Case Study: Google Android
Global Market Share Analysis of Smartphone Operating Systems
100
Other 12%
Various
Other 11%
Various
Other 4%
Windows 12%
CLOSED
BlackBerry 10%
CLOSED
Windows 4%
CLOSED
BlackBerry 3%
Windows 5%
CLOSED
BlackBerry 11%
CLOSED
BlackBerry 17%
CLOSED
Windows 12%
CLOSED
BlackBerry 20%
CLOSED
70
Other 3%
Windows 4%
CLOSED
Windows 9%
CLOSED
90
80
Other 6%
Various
BlackBerry 17%
CLOSED
iOS 19%
CLOSED
iOS 29%
CLOSED
iOS 27%
CLOSED
iOS 16%
CLOSED
Market Share (units in %)
iOS 3%
60
iOS 8%
CLOSED
Symbian 4%
OPEN
iOS 14%
CLOSED
Android’s
Market
Share grew
by +1600%
in 5 years
Symbian 19%
OPEN
50
Symbian 37%
OPEN
40
30
Symbian 64%
CLOSED
Symbian 52%
CLOSED
Android 59%
OPEN
Symbian 47%
CLOSED
Android 65%
OPEN
Android 47%
OPEN
20
Android
Symbian
iOS
BlackBerry
Windows
Other
Android 23%
OPEN
10
Android 4%
0
10
Q1-Q4 2007
Q1-Q4 2008
Q1-Q4 2009
Q1-Q4 2010
Fiscal Year
UNCLASSIFIED
Q1-Q4 2011
Q1-Q4 2012
Q1-Q4 2013
Data Reference (2-23)
UNCLASSIFIED
The Rise of Android’s Global Sales Volume
Case Study: Google Android
Global Market Share Analysis of Smartphone Operating Systems
1000
Windows 32M
900
800
Global Smartphone Industry approaches a record setting
Annual Sales Volume of 1-Billion Units sold in 2013
iOS 152M
CLOSED
Sales Volume (units in Millions (M))
700
BlackBerry 33M
600
iOS 132M
CLOSED
500
Symbian 26M
BlackBerry 51M
CLOSED
400
Android 773M
OPEN
iOS 90M
CLOSED
300
BlackBerry 50M
CLOSED
BlackBerry 34M
100
0
Android 469M
OPEN
iOS 47M
CLOSED
200
11
Symbian 84M
OPEN
Symbian 78M
CLOSED
Symbian 73M
CLOSED
Q1-Q4 2007
Q1-Q4 2008
Symbian 81M
CLOSED
Q1-Q4 2009
Symbian 112M
OPEN
Android
Symbian
iOS
BlackBerry
Windows
Other
Android 229M
OPEN
Android 67M
OPEN
Q1-Q4 2010
Fiscal Year
UNCLASSIFIED
Q1-Q4 2011
Q1-Q4 2012
Q1-Q4 2013
Data Reference (2-23)
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS IA & Licensing Considerations
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS Misconceptions & Misinterpretations
DoD reserves the right, appointed by Congress, to Veto any “Free-World Export” license
13
UNCLASSIFIED
Data Reference (1)(27)
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS IA & Licensing Considerations
The DoD Guidance clears the path for the broad government use of OSS
14
UNCLASSIFIED
Data Reference (1)
UNCLASSIFIED
Common Open Source License Types
• OSS does NOT mean the software must be available to the public, a common misconception
• Rather, if the open source software is delivered to a party, then that party must receive ALL
source code used to build that software, if requested
• Various licenses dictate how licensing terms are applied to the Open Source Software:
Name
GPL
(General
Purpose
License)
LGPL
(Lesser GPL)
BSD
(Berkley
Software
Dist.)
“Freeness”
Use
GPL
None
BSD
Modify
Other
GPL
Very common, but using GPL OSS
means your app is GPL, and must
be FREE.
LGPL
Software that mods LGPL OSS
must be FREE but can charge $ if
uses it.
BSD
Maintains ©, 3 flavors, no FREE
requirement
MIT, Boost, Apache are similar
CDDL
Incompatible with GPL, allows
better separation btwn. proprietary
and open source.
CDDL
(Common
Develop. &
Distribution
License)
CDDL
15
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
ES Tools for Managing OSS & Company IP
Forge.mil
LGPL3
OpenOffice
GPL3
Automate Security Tool Suite
• External OSS
Input Software
Scans code for IP and vulnerabilities
Tool findings
Linux
• Identifies and flags known OSS and proprietary code
Android
• Lists associated copyrights and licenses
OSS User
Source Forge
Output Software
• To protect IP, ES provides tool to entire sector
 Reuse Library (RL) is a repository for
storing vetted company developed code.
• Responsible for adhering to
licenses/agreements
Tool Findings
 Tools allows OSS user to scan their
developed code for propriety and risks.
• Reusable software w/ vetted OSS
• License agreement requests
 RL uses Tool to vet submissions.
 RL submitters will be asked to provide
confirmation of agreements to found
licenses.
Reuse Library
•
•
•
•
•
 Tools helps OSS users be aware of
and comply with associated agreements.
• Company Software
• License agreements
Company repository of reusable software
Company IP MUST be protected
License / Copyright agreements MUST be complied with
Obligations / Agreements of Users MUST be noted
Will restrict access to code that does not meet requirements
Established OSS knowledge repositories exist and are currently available
16
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS Benefits & Challenges
UNCLASSIFIED
Emerging Defense Industry Priorities
Potential OSS Benefits & Challenges
Benefits
Challenges
Independence
Source Delivery
System Improvements
Awareness & Compliance
 Removes reliance on proprietary solutions
 Avoids the necessity of sole-source vendor contracts




Reliability, availability, & maintainability (RAM)
Stability
Flexibility
Technology refresh rate
Lowered Costs




 Distinct marking of Company IP, 3rd Party IP, and OSS
 Awareness and compliance with licenses and agreements
 Documentation of associated licenses and agreements
OSS Interoperability
Development
Life cycle management
Maintenance
System refresh
Time
 DoD requirements for source delivery
 DoD selection criteria favoring source delivery
 Clear interpretation of source requirements
 Obsolescence
 Maintenance
 Overall mission (roadmap needs to be clear)
 Reduced time to market
 Quick reaction time for new opportunities
Security Concerns
 Agreements for OSS usage (unclassified vs. classified programs)
 Assessment of OSS author and interface risk
DoD Aware of Open Source Potential and Seeking to Capitalize on OSS
18
Mark pages according to the proprietary level of information as described in Company Procedure J103 (or remove)
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS Intellectual Property & Legal Concerns
DoD Guidance clarifies the meaning of existing laws, policies and regulations
19
UNCLASSIFIED
Data Reference (1)
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS SE Process
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS Systems Engineering (SE) Process
Process Input
Stakeholders
 Customer
 End-User (UX)
 Company
Considerations
 Needs
 Objectives
 Requirements
 Interfaces
 Constraints
Proven OSS Elements
 Design Solutions
 Design Data
 Requirements
 Cost Data
 Use Cases
 Verification & Test
Process Output
OSS
SE
Process*
*Enterprise Process Currently Undefined
System Architecture
 Design
 Interfaces
 Performance Data
 Baseline
Documentation
 Specifications
 Trade Studies
 CONOPS
Execution Inputs
 Master Plan/Sch.
 Life Cycle Cost
 Support Data
Standards/Specifications
Technology Base
OSS SE Process = (Repeatable Process + Measurable Results)Benefit
21
UNCLASSIFIED
Data Reference (24)
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS Process Considerations
Assess OSS Options
Determine OSS with
Potential Use in
Company Products
Conduct Security
Evaluation of OSS
Conduct License
Evaluation of OSS
Add OSS to
Repository &
Company Usage
Policies
Conduct SE Process
Inform User to Pull
OSS from Repository
Obtain User
Agreement to
Understanding of OSS
Licensing
Restrictions/Rules
Determine OSS to be
Implemented
Front-Loading OSS in the Development Life Cycle reduces Cost/Schedule
22
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Increasing Market Share with OSS
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
What are the DoD Interests?
Strategic Investments
DoD Budget Priorities for Fiscal Year 2014
Cyber
Security
Space
Airborne
ISR
C3
Industrial
Base
Energy
OSS Direct Implication for the RDT&E and Procurement totaling $166.8B
24
UNCLASSIFIED
Data Reference (25)(26)
UNCLASSIFIED
Targeted Market Strategy
Increasing Market Share with OSS
Targeted Market Strategy
 Leverage OSS to increasing Company Market Share for Cross Sector C4ISR & Logistics
Technologies
XYZ Corporation Sectors
Marine Systems
Radio Systems
Visual Systems
IT Services
Under Water Systems
FM Systems
Visual Solutions
Logistics System
Submarine Systems
AM Systems
EO Systems
Logistics Services
Ridge Systems
WiFi Systems
IR Technologies
Logistics Training
Planning & Technology
Radio Research
SAR Systems
OSS meets DoD Visual & IT needs across XYZ Core Business Areas
25
UNCLASSIFIED
Data Reference (28)
UNCLASSIFIED
OSS Elements of Success
Empirically Proven
• Observed OSS Elements of Success
– Frequent and Direct Communication with Customer
– Resolve OSS Concern Early in the Development Life Cycle
– Clearly determine the following considerations for each OSS Module
• Licensing
• Usage
• OSS Product Implications, Restrictions and Distribution Rights
– OSS Licensing/Distribution Documentation Requirements
• Measured OSS Elements of Success
– IRAD will determine measurable OSS Element of Success
Communication is Key for the Successful Implementation of OSS
26
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
IMS OSS Next Step
• Secure funding necessary to develop OSS Process & Policies
• Secure funding necessary to research viable DoD market trends
Funding is needed to further the development of the OSS Process
27
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) Memorandum, “Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS),” October 16,
2009, <http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.pdf>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2013 Q4". Retrieved 2014-01-13, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2665715>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2013 Q3". Retrieved 2013-11-14, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2623415>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2013 Q2". Retrieved 2013-08-14, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2573415>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2013 Q1". Retrieved 2013-05-14, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2482816>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2012 Q4". Retrieved 2013-02-13, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2335616>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2012 Q3". Retrieved 2012-11-14, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2237315>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2012 Q2". Retrieved 2012-08-14, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2120015>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2012 Q1". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2017015>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2011 Q4". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1924314>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2011 Q2". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1764714>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2011 Q1". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1689814>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2010 Q4". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1543014>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2010 Q3". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1466313>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2010 Q2". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1421013>
Gartner, Inc., "Gartner Smart Phone Marketshare 2010 Q1". Retrieved 2012-05-26, <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1372013>
International Data Corporation, " "Android and iOS Continue to Dominate the Worldwide Smartphone Market with Android Shipments
Just Shy of 800 Million in 2013". Retrieved 2014-01-13, < http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24676414>.
Kantar World Panel, "Kantar Worldpanel ComTech’s Smartphone OS market share data Q4 2013". Retrieved 2014-01-27
Kantar World Panel, "Kantar Worldpanel ComTech’s Smartphone OS market share data Q3 2013". Retrieved 2013-11-17
Kantar World Panel, "Kantar Worldpanel ComTech’s Smartphone OS market share data Q2 2013". Retrieved 2013-11-17
Kantar World Panel, "Kantar Worldpanel ComTech’s Smartphone OS market share data Q1 2013". Retrieved 2013-11-17
Kantar World Panel, "Kantar Worldpanel ComTech’s Smartphone OS market share data Q4 2012". Retrieved 2013-11-17
Kantar World Panel, "Kantar Worldpanel ComTech’s Smartphone OS market share data Q3 2012". Retrieved 2013-11-17
Northrop Grumman Corporation, “General Description and Systems Engineering (SE) Process Flow Diagram”. Retrieved 2014-02-17,
<http://wiki.northgrum.com/wiki/Mission_systems_engineering>
DoD, “SUMMARY OF THE DOD FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET PROPOSAL”. Retrieved 2014-03-16
<www.defense.gov/news/2014budget.pdf>
DoD, “DEFENSE BUDGET PRIORITIES AND CHOICES FISCAL YEAR 2014”. Retrieved 2014-03-16
<www.defense.gov/.../DefenseBudgetPrioritiesChoicesFiscalYear2014.pdf>
DoD, “THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S ROLE IN FREE-WORLD EXPORT LICENSING UNDER THE EXPORT
ADMINISTRATION ACT”. Retrieved 2014-03-17 <scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3048&context=dlj>
Northrop Grumman Corporation, “U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-K”, Retrieved 2014-03-16 <
http://investor.northropgrumman.com/Mobile.view?c=112386&d=0&v=0>
28
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Q & A Session
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Backup
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Open Source License Types
•
Apache License 2.0
–
•
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" license
–
•
The GNU General Public Licence (GPL) is probably one of the most commonly used licenses for open-source projects. The GPL grants and guarantees a wide range of rights to developers
who work on open-source projects. Basically, it allows users to legally copy, distribute and modify software.
GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL)
–
•
BSD licenses represent a family of permissive free software licenses that have fewer restrictions on distribution compared to other free software licenses such as the GNU General Public
License. Among different versions of the license two versons are particularly important: the New BSD License/Modified BSD License, and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License. Both
have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses, and have been accepted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative.
GNU General Public License (GPL)
–
•
The New BSD License (“3-clause license”) allows unlimited redistribution for any purpose as long as its copyright notices and the license’s disclaimers of warranty are maintained. The license
also contains a clause restricting use of the names of contributors for endorsement of a derived work without specific permission. The primary difference between the New BSD License and
the Simplified BSD license is that the latter omits the non-endorsement clause.
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" license
–
•
The Apache License, Version 2.0, grants a number of rights to users. These rights can be applied to both copyrights and patents. Because some licenses can be applied only to copyrights
and not patents, this flexibility would be an obvious factor in a patent developer’s choice of license (read this article on How Stuff Works for an explanation of the difference).
You should be aware of another GNU license: the Lesser General Public Licence (LGPL). It grants fewer rights to a work than the standard GPL. Generally, the LGPL is appropriate for
libraries that want to allow linking from non-GPL and non-open-source software. Because the GPL requires that other software with parts of licensed code to also be licensed under the GPL,
developers cannot use GPL-licensed code for paid and proprietary software. The LGPL negates this by not requiring other projects with parts of the code to be similarly licensed.
MIT license
–
The MIT License is the shortest and probably broadest of all the popular open-source licenses. Its terms are very loose and more permissive than most other licenses.
•
Mozilla Public License 2.0
•
Common Development and Distribution License
•
Eclipse Public License
32
UNCLASSIFIED

similar documents