10 most successful open source projects of 2012

1.- Apache Hadoop

 The Apache Hadoop software library is a framework that allows for the distributed processing of large data sets across clusters of computers using simple programming models. It is designed to scale up from single servers to thousands of machines, each offering local computation and storage. Rather than rely on hardware to deliver high-avaiability, the library itself is designed to detect and handle failures at the application layer, so delivering a highly-availabile service on top of a cluster of computers, each of which may be prone to failures.

Developer(s):      Apache Software Foundation
Business model: R&D cost sharing, Platform Providers
Licenses:      Apache License 2.0
Created date: 27 December, 2011: release 1.0.0 available
Used by: Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, Ebay, Dell, Apple, HP, NetApp, IBM, ...

References:
[0] http://hadoop.apache.org/
[1] http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/business~solutions~whitepapers~en/Documents~hadoop-business-cases.pdf.aspx


2.- MongoDB

MongoDB (from "humongous") is a scalable, high-performance, open source NoSQL database. Written in C++, MongoDB features: Document-Oriented Storage, full Index Support, replication & High Availability, auto-Sharding, querying, fast In-Place Updates, map/Reduce, gridFS and commercial Support.

Developer(s): 10gen
Business model: Dual licensing,
Licenses: GNU AGPL v3.0 (drivers: Apache license)
Created date: 2009
Used by: ETSY, Disney, Graigslist, Foursquare, The New York Times

References:
[0] http://www.mongodb.org/
[1] http://www.10gen.com/products/mongodb-subscriptions

3.- OpenStack

OpenStack is an Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) cloud computing project that is free open source software released under the terms of the Apache License. The project is managed by the OpenStack Foundation, a non-profit corporate entity established in September 2012 to promote, protect and empower OpenStack software and its community.

Developer(s): Founded by Rackspace Hosting and NASA, OpenStack has grown to be a global software community of developers
Business model: Platform Providers, R&D cost sharing
License(s):  Apache 2.0 license
Created date: In July 2010, Rackspace Hosting and NASA jointly launched a new open source cloud initiative known as OpenStack.   
Used by: NASA, HP, AT&T, Deustche Telekom, Ubuntu, IBM, Nebula, Rackspace, Red Hat, SUSE [1]

References:
[0] http://www.openstack.org/
[1] http://www.openstack.org/foundation/companies/

4.- Pentaho

Pentaho built a big business in business intelligence, integrating with Hadoop partners as well as NoSQL companies. It also had a big year in raising capital and winning customers. While those in the know recognize Pentaho for the powerhouse it is, if you are not in its market, it may be new to you.

Developer(s): Pentaho Corporation
Business model: Dual licensing
License(s):  Pentaho Community Edition (CE): Apache version 2.0; Pentaho Enterprise Edition (EE): Commercial License
Created date: 2004
Used by: HP, Red Hat, Cloudera, MySQL, Accenture

References:
[0] http://www.pentaho.com/

5.- PostgreSQL

PostgreSQL is a powerful, open source object-relational database system. It has more than 15 years of active development and a proven architecture that has earned it a strong reputation for reliability, data integrity, and correctness.

While there has been a lot of noise around NoSQL databases, the traditional relational database space has not exactly dried up, either. While many view Oracle's ownership of MySQL as the worst thing that could happen to open source databases, it has opened a window for another open source SQL database to gain traction. PostgreSQL and EnterpriseDB, the company selling commercial support and services for PostgreSQL, have been on a great roll lately.


Developer(s): PostgreSQL Global Development Group
Business model: R&D cost sharing, Dual license(EnterpriseDB)
Licenses: PostgreSQL licence
Created date: 1989
Used by: Skype, Reddit, State Farm, Sony Online, Instagram, EnterpriseDB

References:
[0] http://www.postgresql.org/
[1] http://www.enterprisedb.com/products-services-training/subscriptions

6.- Joomla

Joomla is a free and open source content management system (CMS) for publishing content on the World Wide Web and intranets and a model–view–controller (MVC) Web application framework that can also be used independently. What has really helped Joomla is positioning itself as a platform that supports lots of different apps and extensions to give users more power and flexibility in building a Web presence.

Developer(s):  The Joomla Project Team
Business model: Platform Providers, Selection/consulting companies, Product specialists
Licenses: GNU General Public License v2
Created date: Joomla was the result of a fork of Mambo on August 17, 2005.
Used by: Over 35 million downloads

References:
[0] http://www.joomla.org/

7.- WordPress

WordPress is a free and open source blogging tool and a content management system (CMS) based on PHP and MySQL. While Joomla positions itself as a Web platform, WordPress has made its bones as the blog platform of choice. There are claims that WordPress is the most popular WCM platform, but it's hard to know for sure. What I do know is that I use WordPress for my personal blogs, and I love it. The plug-in catalog continues to grow. There is virtually nothing you can't do with a WordPress blog. While security concerns were an issue in years past, we don't hear as much about them anymore.

Developer(s): WordPress Foundation
Business model: Platform Providers,  Indirect revenues,  WordPress.com is run by Automattic which currently makes money from the aforementioned upgrades, blog services, Akismet anti-spam technology, and hosting partnerships.
Licenses:  GNU GPLv2 (or later)
Created date: May 27, 2003
Used by: CNN, Forbes, Reuters, Mashable, The New York Times

References:
[0] http://wordpress.com/


8.- DotNetNuke

DotNetNuke is a web content management system based on Microsoft .NET. The Community Edition is open source.
There are two commercial editions of the software with increased functionality compared to the community edition, and technical support.

Developer(s):      DotNetNuke Corporation
Business model: Open Core, Dual license
Licenses:  MIT
Created date: 2006
Used by: Microsoft

References:
[0] http://www.dotnetnuke.com/
[1] http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Products/Compare-Editions.aspx

9.-SugarCRM

SugarCRM is a software company based in Cupertino, California. It produces the web application Sugar, also known as SugarCRM, which is a customer relationship management (CRM) system that is available in both open source and Commercial open source applications. With the following products: Sugar Community Edition, Sugar Professional, Sugar Corporate, Sugar Enterprise and Sugar Ultimate

Developer(s): SugarCRM
Business model: Open Core, Dual license
Licenses:  SugarCRM Public License (based on the Mozilla Public License and the Attribution Assurance License)
Created date: 2004
Used by: Sharepoint, Lotus Notes, Yahoo Mail, Outlook, Gmail

References:
[0] http://www.sugarcrm.com/
[1] http://www.sugarforge.org/

10.- Audacity

Audacity is a free digital audio editor and recording application. While not a big commercial success like the rest of the open source projects on this list. If you have to work with audio files, Audacity sets the bar for ease of use and powerful tools. It has been downloaded something like 70 million times.


Developer(s):      The Audacity Team
Business model: Not yet, they are looking for sponsors (corporations, foundations, individuals, ...) who love Audacity and would like to pay them to develop it at a faster pace then they're developing now.
Licenses:  GNU General Public License v2
Created date: 2002
Used by:  General public (5.200 downloads per week)

References
[0] http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

General references:
[0]NetworkWorld - 10-most-successful-open-source-projects-of-2012

Carlo Daffara taxonomy (FLOSSMETRICS) of business model and examples

1.     Dual licensing, e.g. MySQL, Mozilla software, Sleepycatdb, Pentaho
2.     Open Core, e.g. Zimbra, SugarCRM, Eucalyptus, SendMail
3.     Product specialists, e.g. Alfresco
4.     Platform Providers, e.g. RedHat, OpenStack
5.     Selection/consulting companies, e.g. Navica, Open WebApps
6.     Aggregate support providers, e.g. OpenLogic
7.     Legal certification and insurance, e.g. Palamida
8.     Training and documentation, e.g. Gbdirect
9.     R&D cost sharing, e.g. Eclipse, Webkit, OpenStack, Maemo (Nokia)
10.     Indirect revenues, e.g. Firefox, Android, Perl (O'Reilly)

Dual licensing

• Economic advantage for the vendor
• Dissemination for the product with reduced costs
• Creation of external ecosystem of add-ons (outside the source)
• Visibility
• Self-segmentation of the market

• Economic advantage for the adopter
• The adopter may opt for the open source edition if it is deemed sufficient; for the proprietary part, reduction in cost may give better price/quality ratio
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Low external participation (limited code contributions)

Open Core

• Economic advantage for the vendor
• Reduction of R&D
• Reduced maintenance costs
• Visibility
• Increased dissemination
• External ecosystem of add-ons
• Self-segmentation of the market for the proprietary add-ons    
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• The adopter may opt for the open source edition if it is deemed sufficient; for the proprietary part, reduction in cost may give better price/quality ratio
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Difficult to estimate the right balance between open and closed parts
• External groups may create substitutes for the proprietary parts    

Product specialists

• Economic advantage for the vendor
• Reduction of R&D
• Reduced maintenance costs
• Visibility
• Increased dissemination
• External ecosystem of add-ons    
  
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• Reduction in cost may give better price/quality ratio for the adopted software
• Stability
• Integrated support reduces external costs
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Low barrier of entry for third-parties

Platform Providers

• Economic advantage for the vendor 
• Reduction of R&D
• Reduced maintenance costs
• Visibility, increased dissemination
• External ecosystem of software and additions
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• Reduction in cost may give better price/quality ratio for the adopted software
• Stability
• Integrated support reduces external costs
• Legal protection is included
• Easy to find trained personnel
• Availability of long-term options    
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Platform engineering requires large R&D efforts even with shared resources

Selection/consulting companies

• Economic advantage for the vendor 
• Cost of software certification and selection can be partially shared across customers, as most adopters have a large share of common needs    
  
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• Reduced selection costs
• Reduced risk of wrong choice
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Limited market
• Difficulty in following rapid evolution of the products covered (evaluation costs)
  

Aggregate support providers

• Economic advantage for the vendor 
• Cost of support can be partially shared across customers
• Economies of scale
  
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• A single point of control and cost for a large number of project
• Reduced negotiation efforts for large number of individual vendors
• Simplified management and governance
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Limited market
• May be perceived as in partial competition with existing specialists

Legal certification and insurance

• Economic advantage for the vendor
• Cost of legal certification and secondary-level insurance can be shared across the most used OSS projects
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• Equivalent to insurance
• Provides a materialized and stable costs against uncertain, difficult to quantify negative events
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Limited market
• Difficult to estimate risk probabilities
• Need to cover separate legal frameworks across the world with different rules

Training and documentation

• Economic advantage for the vendor 
• A significant portion of training development costs can be shared across customers
• Economies of scale
• Reuse of community-developed material
  
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• Lower cost for training compared to self-managed training (from source code, publicly available documentation)    
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• May be perceived as in partial competition with existing specialists
• Human intensive
• Most of it cannot be replicated at low cost
   

R&D cost sharing

• Economic advantage for the vendor 
• Reduction of R&D
• Reduced maintenance costs
  
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• Same as vendor- in this case, vendor and adopter coincide
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Estabilishing the management and contribution structures may be complex and costly, requires constant effort

Indirect revenues

• Economic advantage for the vendor 
• Source availability reduces engineering costs
• Increase visibility on multiple platforms
  
• Economic advantage for the adopter
• Adopters obtains a quality product at no cost
• Potential large ecosystem for extensions    
• Potential disadvantages of the model
• Requires a large external market for incentives
• May be dependent on a single (or small number) of actors increasing risk

[1] http://docencia.etsit.urjc.es/moodle/pluginfile.php/13408/mod_resource/content/1/03-business-models.pdf
[2] OSS Business models table

Affero GPL

La comunidad de software libre es importante que tenga consciencia que en el nuevo marco de servicios en la nube, para preservar la libertad del usuario y evitar la distribución del software como servicio (SaaS) sin distribuir el codigo fuente, existe licencias como Affero GPL que nos protege.

En teoría, un programa con licencias GPL podría ser "distribuido" como SaaS  y evitar cumplir con los requisitos de la GPL.

Affero GPL v3

Why the Affero GPL

Licencias libres Creative Common

Cuando un autor se plantea utilizar una licencia Creative Common tiene que tener en cuenta que no todas son licencias son libres en el sentido del software libre.

Consideremos la lista de licencias Creative Common libres:

permissive

Reconocimiento (by): Se permite cualquier explotación de la obra, incluyendo una finalidad comercial, así como la creación de obras derivadas, la distribución de las cuales también está permitida sin ninguna restricción.



strong copyleft

   Reconocimiento - CompartirIgual (by-sa): Se permite el uso comercial de la obra y de las posibles obras derivadas, la distribución de las cuales se debe hacer con una licencia igual a la que regula la obra original.

Clausulas antipatentes en la licencias de SW libre

La licencias de software libre han tenido que ir adaptando sus clausulas para incluir clausulas antipantentes.

En GPL v2 se incluye la siguiente clausula en la sección 6:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.  


En GPL v2 se incluye la siguiente clausula en la sección 7:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.  

En GPL v3 y Affero GPL v3 se incluye la siguiente clausula en la sección 10:
you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it. 

En GPL v3 y Affero GPL v3 se incluye la siguiente clausula en la sección 11:
A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.  

En Apache License 2.0  se incluye la siguiente clausula en la sección 3:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.

If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.  


En MPL 2.0  se incluye la siguiente clausula en la sección 5:
If You initiate litigation against any entity by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declaratory judgment actions, counter-claims, and cross-claims) alleging that a Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then the rights granted to You by any and all Contributors for the Covered Software under Section 2.1 of this License shall terminate. 

En MPL 2.0  se incluye la siguiente clausula en la sección 2:
Each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license: [...] under Patent Claims of such Contributor to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, import, and otherwise transfer either its Contributions or its Contributor Version.  

Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted by a Contributor: [...] under Patent Claims infringed by Covered Software in the absence of its Contributions.

  

Licencias para tu código de software libre

Cualquier desarrollador se ha planteado alguna vez que licencia libre utilizar para liberar su código como software libre. A continuación se proporciona una lista  (ni completa  ni exhaustiva) que puede ayudar en un primer momento.

La licencia se suele poner en la cabeza de todos los ficheros si es pequeña, de lo contrario se puede poner un resumen y hacer referencia a otro fichero que contenga completamente la licencia. Se podría hacer referencia a una URL, pero se recomienda que esté incluida en los ficheros por la posibilidad de que ese enlace desaparezca en un futuro.

Comencemos con la lista.

0.1.- Academic/permissive - The ISC License - the shortest license
 
Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person’s Name <E-mail address>. All rights reserved.
 

• Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

0.2.- Academic/permissive - The Simplified (“2-clause”) BSD License

Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>. All rights reserved.


Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

• Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

• Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


 0.3.- Academic/permissive - The Apache License 2.0
/* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
 * contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file distributed with
 * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
 * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
 * the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */

0.3.- Academic/permissive - The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation
files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction,
including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge,
publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software,
and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so,
subject to the following conditions:
 
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.


1.1.- Weak copyleft - The Mozilla Public License (MPL)


/*
* The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License Version
* 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
* http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
*
* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis,
* WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License
* for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the
* License.
*
* The Original Code is AUTHOR, released
* DATE
*
* The Initial Developer of the Original Code is
* AUTHOR
* Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) YYYY
* the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved.
*/

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

 
1.2.- Weak copyleft - The Lesser GPL (LGPL), version 3

Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the Lesser GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the Lesser GNU General Public License
along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

2.1.- Strong copyleft - The GNU GPL, version  3

Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

2.2.- Strong copyleft - The Affero GPL, version 3

Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the Affero GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the Affero GNU General Public License
along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

3.0.- Varias licencias (MPL, GPL, LGPL)
        # Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>

 # Version: MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1

 #

 # The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License Version

 # 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with

 # the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at

 # http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/

 #

 # Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis,

 # WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License

 # for the specific language governing rights and limitations under the

 # License.

 #

 # The Original Code is Mozilla.

 #

 # The Initial Developer of the Original Code is

 # the Mozilla Foundation <http://www.mozilla.org/>.

 # Portions created by the Initial Developer are Copyright (C) 2007

 # the Initial Developer. All Rights Reserved.

 #

 # Contributor(s):

 #  name <mail>

 #

 # Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of

 # either the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or

 # the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"),

 # in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead

 # of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only

 # under the terms of either the GPL or the LGPL, and not to allow others to

 # use your version of this file under the terms of the MPL, indicate your

 # decision by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice

 # and other provisions required by the GPL or the LGPL. If you do not delete

 # the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file under

 # the terms of any one of the MPL, the GPL or the LGPL.

Referencias:
[1] Free Software licenses Legal Aspects – Master on Free Software 2012-13

Legislación española sobre software libre

Ley 11/2007

La Ley 11/2007, de 22 de Junio, de Acceso Electrónico de los Ciudadanos a los Servicios Públicos establece medidas que fomentan la reutilización de sistemas y aplicaciones propiedad de la Administración, así como el intercambio y transferencia de tecnología a través de directorios actualizados de aplicaciones para su libre reutilización.


Ley 56/2007

 La Ley 56/2007, de 28 de Diciembre, de Medidas de Impulso de la Sociedad de la Información, establece que CENATIC, en colaboración con el CTT, es el encargado de la puesta en valor y difusión de las aplicaciones declaradas de fuente abierta por las administraciones públicas. Además, CENATIC se encargará del asesoramiento jurídico, tecnológico y metodológico para la liberación de software.
 
Real Decreto 4/2010

    El Real Decreto 4/2010, del Ministerio de Administraciones Públicas, de 8 de enero, por el que se regula el Esquema Nacional de Interoperabilidad en el ámbito de la Administración Electrónica, establece que antes de desarrollar un nuevo sistema o mejorar y actualizar los ya implantados, las administraciones deben considerar las soluciones disponibles que puedan satisfacer total o parcialmente las necesidades. Además, afirma que deberán procurar la publicación del código de las aplicaciones en desarrollo o finalizadas, en directorios para su libre reutilización con el fin de favorecer las actuaciones de compartir, reutilizar y colaborar, en beneficio de una mayor eficiencia. También establece que CENATIC podrá impulsar proyectos de software de fuentes abiertas dirigidos a la mejor implantación de las medidas de interoperabilidad, el fomento de la reutilización y la facilitación de la interoperabilidad.

Referencias:
[1] CENATIC
[2] BOE