<Course Instructor>
Liferay: A Content and Portal Management Platform
Question One:
Liferay is one of the several Content Management Systems (CMS) and Enterprise portals currently dominating the global software arena. However, unlike most CMSs, Liferay uses an Open-Source Development Model (Bwired, 2009, p. 3). Since its development in 2000, under flagship software – also named Liferay – the Liferay’s Open Source Software (OSS) portal is distributed under a Permissive Open-Source (POS) Ticket known as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) License (Deodhar, Bhushan, Saxena, & Gupta, 2014, p.1). Like other POS Licenses such as Mozilla Public License (MPL) and Berkeley Software Development (BSD) Permit, MIT allows the Liferay end-users unrestricted access and permission to modify, repackage, and distribute the Liferay's source codes. It also allows Liferay users to re-license their derived end-product under any license of their choosing including closed sources. As an OSS, Liferay’s development model differs considerably from typical closed-source development models used in Closed-Source Software (CSS) such as the flagship products of Microsoft’s Windows and Oracle Operating Systems (OSs) in some ways.
Firstly, Liferay’s Development model is carried out under a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) platform, unlike the Closed-Source model. Under the closed-source model, the software’s core system is not open to the public. CSSs, unlike FOSSs, are therefore developed as proprietary software that is only released and distributed to the product end users under a restrictive licensing agreement (Bwired, 2009, p. 5). Secondly, Liferay’s development model in principle being an OSS is made commercially available at no cost (Lock, 2011). However, there is a variation in this universal level access of FOSS where some OSS providers can charge for software add-ons, integration, and other additional services. While some FOSS providers can restrict both the accessibility and level of modification of their OSS, Liferay operates on the idea of free public access and mass collaboration in software development. The Open-source licensing on which Liferay, unlike closed-source software, operates means that Liferay users simply acquire and use the software free of charge. This unrestricted access, universal, and general distribution of the software is one of the most peculiar ways in which Liferay differs from closed-source model software (Information Technology Group, 2015).
Another way in which Liferay differs from closed-source developed software is their manner of commercialization. Unlike this off-the-shelf software, Liferay development model comes with unrestricted copyright licenses at no charge with the developer mostly generating revenue by offering support and other additional services. Therefore, unlike Liferay, closed-source model software employs restrictive measures and constraints to bar end user access to the original product source code. The effect of this software restriction is that consumers of closed software cannot own the product but only acquires the right to use the software. This scenario differs from FOSS users such as Liferay that enjoys the freedom and flexibility to tweak, change, and own the product (Information Technology Group, 2015).
Question Two:
At its basic level, Liferay adopts an open-source software architecture platform licensed under General Public License (GPL). However, it also bears an alternative licensure for commercialization. Its platform strategy relies on an Open Source Portal as pointed out previously. The Liferay’s Open-source universal adoption and licensing process enables software developers and end-users outside Liferay to actively contribute and participate in the product development process. Further, Liferay developers’ strategy when developing the software involved extending the capabilities of the software from being just those of a portal to those of a complete software application platform. This attribute accorded Liferay the ability share several of its sides, excel in its attribute as a CMS, and made it as attractive as possible to its competitors. Most importantly, however, is the Liferay’s development strategy that relied on open access to the Software’s Source Code. This platform strategy played a central role in fostering a collaborative Liferay software development process and enabled personalized development of the product.
However, the free access and flexible distribution model offered by Liferay has allowed other software developers to exploit the company’s efforts in developing their products. These individuals not only tweak the software source code but also modify the Liferay’s Core System. This situation resulted in the product being continuously changed, fixed, updated, and expanded on with equally beneficial and disastrous effects. For example, the free nature of the MIT License allowed some vendors to commercialize, release and distribute variants of Liferay. This scenario created some issues for the company the most significant of which was the imminent threat to Liferay’s product development strategy that heavily relied on the across-the-board software compatibility. Additionally, the release of such proprietary versions of Liferay significantly compromised the spirit if the OSS Community (Deodhar, Bhushan, Saxena, & Gupta, 2014, p.2). The proliferation of the variants of the Liferay software incompatibility and constant modifications can lead to the Software’s Core System become not only fractured and un-operational but also non-standardized among its various users. Therefore, to preserve and protect the uniformity, integrity, and stability of the product Core System, Liferay can adopt a platform strategy geared towards the achievement of the same.
Question Three:
One such strategy that the CEO can adopt is to abandon the open source system the software currently relies upon to operate. This licensing choice can help curb the imminent threat posed to the company’s core system by the frequent changes in Liferay Core System a situation made possible by the free nature of the MIT license. However, such a move betray the company’s commitment and adherence to open source software distribution. Therefore, before Bryan Cheung (CEO) decides on whether to retain the MIT Licensing or explore other licensing strategies such as proprietary software licensing or other licensing mechanisms under Open Source (restrictive, hybrid, or permissive), there are several factors one should take into considerations. Some of the factors that influence the software licensing decision-making process include elements such as the operational support options an organization has at its disposal and the availability of the required skill-set to operate the system. Other factors to consider include the software cost and licensing models, application vendor support, software risk analysis, and the software performance requirements (Lock, 2011). All these factors help evaluate the performance of the software in an already highly competitive software environment against such factors as competition, cooperation, product value proposition, and the effects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and patents.
Therefore, while the Liferay CEO Bryan Cheung has other licensing options, I think he should retain the MIT Licensing. Other Licensing options that the CEO has can include the GNU’s General Public License (GPL), BSD and Apache Licenses (Fogel, 2015). Even though MIT like the above Licenses is all Open Source Free Software License, MIT Licensing offers an excellent licensing compatibility. It is also a permissive free software, that is, one is free to modify, use, copy, and manipulate the software all the ways h/she wants. Compared with the rest, MIT license is the least restrictive which in harmony with the FOSS spirit of free, open, and unrestricted access to software. Moreover, MIT is relatively short and is both widely used and recognized. It is also readily usable and attuned with all Versions of the GNU GPL (Fogel, 2015).
Question Four:
Therefore, when deciding on the course of Liferay Licensing, it is paramount to remember that the creation and subsequent adoption of the OSS licensing framework was a bold step that has been instrumental in promoting cooperation and beneficial exchange among various actors with a diverse incentive in the software domain. Though different in copyright permissions, OSS Licenses serves to promote and to ensure fair and total allocation of IPR to everyone (Singh & Phelps, 2010, p. 11). These provisions have enabled software codes to be freely available and accessible to all the community of FOSS users and producers rather than to the few individual Proprietary Software Developers.
Nevertheless, in deciding which Licensing to adopt for Liferay, there are some factors to consider. The choice of Source Code Licensing is important as it helps define the scope of the software’s potential to benefit both the developer and the user from their cooperation in the development of the software. Licensing also affects both the pace and viability of the software in question (Wheeler 2008 as cited in (Singh & Phelps, 2010, p. 9). One such factor to consider before Licensing Liferay is the potential economic conflicts between the potential licensor and the subsequent software contributors. This perspective is a significant factor to consider because, in the Software Economic Model, both the licensor and the donors are regarded as economic entities driven by the individual desire to maximize their incentives from the software.
Other factors to consider include the complexity of the license, the extent of non-commercial benefits derived from the project such as professional recognition, and the commercialization potential of the software. Another important factor is the contributor’s prior knowledge about the available OSS Licenses, and the level of influence such licenses have on the performance and attractiveness of the software (Singh & Phelps, 2010, p. 11). Moreover, existing clarity and the developer’s reliable information on both the strengths and weakness of the Licensing Options to choose from also helps in deciding which License to adopt. Therefore, complete clarity and answers on the above factors can determine the licensing a developer prefers over the other. The need to protect or avail a developer’s contribution to a particular project can also determine the licensing to adopt.
References
Bwired, 2009. Open Source vs. Closed Source (Proprietary) Software [Online] Available at: <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwic7OaH-PvKAhXGsxQKHVTlCK8QFghKMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bwired.com.au%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Dfilemanager%26doc_form_name%3Ddownload%26folder_id%3D774%26doc_id%3D3671&usg=AFQjCNGkG_sbOacBhkZQcW5So6igxdyXnw> [Accessed 16 February 2016].
Deodhar, S. J., Bhushan, K., Saxena, C., & Gupta, R. K., 2014. Liferay: A content and Portal Management Platform (W14226) [Print]. London: Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation [pdf].
Fogel, K., 2015. Choosing a License. [Online] Available at: <http://producingoss.com/en/license-choosing.html> [Accessed 16 February 2016].
Information Technology Group. 2015. What is the Difference between Open Source and Closed Source Software? [Online] (2015, May 18) Available at :< https://www.itgct.com/whats-the-difference-between-open-source-and-closed-source-software/> [Accessed 16 February 2016].
Lock, T. (2011, April 5). Decision criteria for open source and proprietary software [Online] (2010, April 5). Available at: <http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/feature/2040445/decision-criteria-source-proprietary-software> [Accessed 16 February 2016].
Singh, P. V., & Phelps, C. C., 2010. Networks, Social Influence and the Choice among Competing Innovations: Insights from Open Source Software Licenses. SSRN Electronic Journal, 7, 1-39. [Online] Available at: <http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2479&context=tepper> [Accessed 16 February 2016].
