Benjamin Ducke Paper presented at Computer Applications in Archaeology Conference 2014, 22nd - 25th April 2014, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris as part of Session 12: Community Archaeology and Technology. Session organisers: Nicole Beale and Eleonora Gandolfi. Session blog: http://blog.soton.ac.uk/comarch/

3. "As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of
you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for,
but software is something to share. Who cares if the
people who worked on it get paid?" (Bill Gates)
Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists,
Homebrew Computing Club Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Jan. 31, 1976
The pay-per-license model assumes distrust between producer
and consumer.
How about paying directly for the service of making software?
How about breaking the divide between the producer and
consumer roles?

4. "As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of
you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for,
but software is something to share. Who cares if the
people who worked on it get paid?" (Bill Gates)
Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists,
Homebrew Computing Club Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Jan. 31, 1976
The pay-per-license model assumes distrust between producer
and consumer.
How about paying directly for the service of making software?
How about breaking the divide between the producer and
consumer roles?

5. "As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of
you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for,
but software is something to share. Who cares if the
people who worked on it get paid?" (Bill Gates)
Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists,
Homebrew Computing Club Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Jan. 31, 1976
The pay-per-license model assumes distrust between producer
and consumer.
How about paying directly for the service of making software?
How about breaking the divide between the producer and
consumer roles?

6. "As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of
you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for,
but software is something to share. Who cares if the
people who worked on it get paid?" (Bill Gates)
Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists,
Homebrew Computing Club Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Jan. 31, 1976
The pay-per-license model assumes distrust between producer
and consumer.
How about paying directly for the service of making software?
How about breaking the divide between the producer and
consumer roles?

7. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
There is no "open source versus commercial" antagonism!
The real divide is "free versus proprietary".
Designing, documenting, teaching or creating software for
money are examples of commercial activities based on FOSS.
Most programmers (FOSS or not) earn their
money by making customised software for
their clients.

8. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
There is no "open source versus commercial" antagonism!
The real divide is "free versus proprietary".
Designing, documenting, teaching or creating software for
money are examples of commercial activities based on FOSS.
Most programmers (FOSS or not) earn their
money by making customised software for
their clients.

9. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
There is no "open source versus commercial" antagonism!
The real divide is "free versus proprietary".
Designing, documenting, teaching or creating software for
money are examples of commercial activities based on FOSS.
Most programmers (FOSS or not) earn their
money by making customised software for
their clients.

10. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
There is no "open source versus commercial" antagonism!
The real divide is "free versus proprietary".
Designing, documenting, teaching or creating software for
money are examples of commercial activities based on FOSS.
Most programmers (FOSS or not) earn their
money by making customised software for
their clients.

11. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
There is no "open source versus commercial" antagonism!
The real divide is "free versus proprietary".
Designing, documenting, teaching or creating software for
money are examples of commercial activities based on FOSS.
Most programmers (FOSS or not) earn their
money by making customised software for
their clients.

12. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
The global market for FOSS and FOSS-based services is huge
and constantly growing.
Cost estimates for some FOSS projects (www.ohloh.net):
Apache HTTP Server: $15 million.
Mozilla Firefox: $87 million.
Linux Kernel (2.6): $173 million
OpenOffice.org: $428 million
We are dealing with a very "hot" market.
There are strong incentives for increased commercialisation.

13. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
The global market for FOSS and FOSS-based services is huge
and constantly growing.
Cost estimates for some FOSS projects (www.ohloh.net):
Apache HTTP Server: $15 million.
Mozilla Firefox: $87 million.
Linux Kernel (2.6): $173 million
OpenOffice.org: $428 million
We are dealing with a very "hot" market.
There are strong incentives for increased commercialisation.

14. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
Exemplary figures for the cost* of FOSS projects:
1. Analytical plug-ins for (GRASS) GIS: r.xtent, r.dst.*, ...
• thousands of lines of source code
• 3,000-10,000 EUR per job
2. Surveying software: survey2gis (www.survey-tools.org)
• tens of thousands of lines of source code
• 10,000-15,000 EUR
3. Full-featured desktop GIS: gvSIG CE (www.gvsigce.org)
• hundreds of thousands of lines of source code
• > 20 mio. EUR (estimated)
*Includes: concept writing, cost estimate, programming work, testing, end-
user documentation & training. Does not include maintenance.

15. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
Exemplary figures for the cost* of FOSS projects:
1. Analytical plug-ins for (GRASS) GIS: r.xtent, r.dst.*, ...
• thousands of lines of source code
• 3,000-10,000 EUR per job
2. Surveying software: survey2gis (www.survey-tools.org)
• tens of thousands of lines of source code
• 10,000-15,000 EUR
3. Full-featured desktop GIS: gvSIG CE (www.gvsigce.org)
• hundreds of thousands of lines of source code
• > 20 mio. EUR (estimated)
*Includes: concept writing, cost estimate, programming work, testing, end-
user documentation & training. Does not include maintenance.

16. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in commerce
Exemplary figures for the cost* of FOSS projects:
1. Analytical plug-ins for (GRASS) GIS: r.xtent, r.dst.*, ...
• thousands of lines of source code
• 3,000-10,000 EUR per job
2. Surveying software: survey2gis (www.survey-tools.org)
• tens of thousands of lines of source code
• 10,000-15,000 EUR
3. Full-featured desktop GIS: gvSIG CE (www.gvsigce.org)
• hundreds of thousands of lines of source code
• > 20 mio. EUR (estimated)
*Includes: concept writing, cost estimate, programming work, testing, end-
user documentation & training. Does not include maintenance.

17. Size of the FOSS GIS commons
Rank sizes of FOSS desktop GIS projects (Code Analyzer):
Name Prog. Lang. Lines of Code k Lines of Code
gvSIG CE Java 811697 812
QGIS C/C++/Python 703105 703
GRASS GIS C/Python 498895 499
Kosmo Desktop Java 399174 399
OSSIM C/C++ 340586 341
uDig Java 309386 309
MapWindow .Net 308838 309
SAGA GIS C/C++ 264443 264
Whitebox Java 242811 243
OrbisGIS Java 149756 150
OpenJUMP Java 144575 145
GMT C 137992 138
deegree2 desktop Java 87836 88

18. FOSS in Archaeology
Almost everybody uses it.
Almost nobody invests money into it.
Why?
Hyp. 1: Not enough information ("politician's hypothesis").
Hyp. 2: FOSS is unattractive ("null hypothesis").
Hyp. 3: Market is underdeveloped ("economist's hypothesis").

19. FOSS in Archaeology
Almost everybody uses it.
Almost nobody invests money into it.
Why?
Hyp. 1: Not enough information ("politician's hypothesis").
Hyp. 2: FOSS is unattractive ("null hypothesis").
Hyp. 3: Market is underdeveloped ("economist's hypothesis").

20. FOSS in Archaeology
Almost everybody uses it.
Almost nobody invests money into it.
Why?
Hyp. 1: Not enough information ("politician's hypothesis").
Hyp. 2: FOSS is unattractive ("null hypothesis").
Hyp. 3: Market is underdeveloped ("economist's hypothesis").

21. FOSS in Archaeology
Almost everybody uses it.
Almost nobody invests money into it.
Why?
Hyp. 1: Not enough information ("politician's hypothesis").
Hyp. 2: FOSS is unattractive ("null hypothesis").
Hyp. 3: Market is underdeveloped ("economist's hypothesis").

22. FOSS in Archaeology
Almost everybody uses it.
Almost nobody invests money into it.
Why?
Hyp. 1: Not enough information ("politician's hypothesis").
Hyp. 2: FOSS is unattractive ("null hypothesis").
Hyp. 3: Market is underdeveloped ("economist's hypothesis").

23. FOSS in Archaeology
Almost everybody uses it.
Almost nobody invests money into it.
Why?
Hyp. 1: Not enough information ("politician's hypothesis").
Hyp. 2: FOSS is unattractive ("null hypothesis").
Hyp. 3: Market is underdeveloped ("economist's hypothesis").

24. Is there money to be made in archaeological software?
Table: staff training actions (Source: German Association of State
Archaeologists 2008: www.discovering-archaeologists.eu)
Sample Size: n=112 Planned Trainings (%)
Information Technology 49.1
DTP/Editing 15.2
Project Management 13.4
Accounting 11.6
Marketing 10.7
Business Management 8.9
Staffing 8.9
Misc. 8.9
Customer Relations 5.4
Teaching Skills 4.5
Consulting Skills 4.5
Language Skills 3.6

25. Some conclusions from recent survey data:
1. Most archaeologists work as diggers/surveyors, either within
academic institutions or commercial units.
2. The university curricula largely ignore the job market and do
not provide enough IT education.
From 1 & 2 follows:
There is a significant demand for specific software solutions and
education within applied archaeology (foremost field work).
But:
The archaeological software market is challenging and small!

26. Some conclusions from recent survey data:
1. Most archaeologists work as diggers/surveyors, either within
academic institutions or commercial units.
2. The university curricula largely ignore the job market and do
not provide enough IT education.
From 1 & 2 follows:
There is a significant demand for specific software solutions and
education within applied archaeology (foremost field work).
But:
The archaeological software market is challenging and small!

27. Some conclusions from recent survey data:
1. Most archaeologists work as diggers/surveyors, either within
academic institutions or commercial units.
2. The university curricula largely ignore the job market and do
not provide enough IT education.
From 1 & 2 follows:
There is a significant demand for specific software solutions and
education within applied archaeology (foremost field work).
But:
The archaeological software market is challenging and small!

28. Some conclusions from recent survey data:
1. Most archaeologists work as diggers/surveyors, either within
academic institutions or commercial units.
2. The university curricula largely ignore the job market and do
not provide enough IT education.
From 1 & 2 follows:
There is a significant demand for specific software solutions and
education within applied archaeology (foremost field work).
But:
The archaeological software market is challenging and small!

29. Economic aspects of FOSS
Creating software costs money. No investment, no software.
FOSS offers many options to keep the cost down:
1. No redundant investment needed.
2. Strong synergies and opportunities for shared investment.
4. Low maintenance cost through community involvement.

30. Economic aspects of FOSS
Creating software costs money. No investment, no software.
FOSS offers many options to keep the cost down:
1. No redundant investment needed.
2. Strong synergies and opportunities for shared investment.
4. Low maintenance cost through community involvement.

32. FOSS as social capital
Hypothesis: The technological and economical strength of FOSS
results from its social structure.
1. Flat hierarchies & low barriers to entry.
3. Direct networking & collaboration.
4. Shared stakeholding & return on investment.

33. FOSS as social capital
Hypothesis: The technological and economical strength of FOSS
results from its social structure.
1. Flat hierarchies & low barriers to entry.
3. Direct networking & collaboration.
4. Shared stakeholding & return on investment.

36. FOSS as social capital
Some lessons learned the hard way:
1. Do not host projects under domains such as
"www.abc-university.edu/project-name"
2. Release (source code) early, release often.
3. Start the community building early.
4. Find a strong platform for increased longevity.
5. Remember to delegate and give up control.

37. FOSS as social capital
Some lessons learned the hard way:
1. Do not host projects under domains such as
"www.abc-university.edu/project-name"
2. Release (source code) early, release often.
3. Start the community building early.
4. Find a strong platform for increased longevity.
5. Remember to delegate and give up control.

38. FOSS as social capital
Some lessons learned the hard way:
1. Do not host projects under domains such as
"www.abc-university.edu/project-name"
2. Release (source code) early, release often.
3. Start the community building early.
4. Find a strong platform for increased longevity.
5. Remember to delegate and give up control.

39. FOSS as social capital
Some lessons learned the hard way:
1. Do not host projects under domains such as
"www.abc-university.edu/project-name"
2. Release (source code) early, release often.
3. Start the community building early.
4. Find a strong platform for increased longevity.
5. Remember to delegate and give up control.

40. FOSS as social capital
Some lessons learned the hard way:
1. Do not host projects under domains such as
"www.abc-university.edu/project-name"
2. Release (source code) early, release often.
3. Start the community building early.
4. Find a strong platform for increased longevity.
5. Remember to delegate and give up control.

41. FOSS as social capital
Some lessons learned the hard way:
1. Do not host projects under domains such as
"www.abc-university.edu/project-name"
2. Release (source code) early, release often.
3. Start the community building early.
4. Find a strong platform for increased longevity.
5. Remember to delegate and give up control.

42. Case study 1: survey2gis (www.survey-tools.org)

43. Case study 1: survey2gis (www.survey-tools.org)
Purpose: A compact tool for producing high-quality GIS data
from survey (totalstation, GPS, etc.) data.
Funding: Currently a single investor (State Heritage Baden-
Württemberg/Germany).
Community: Archaeologists and surveyors from other fields.

44. Case study 2: gvSIG CE (gvsigce.org)

46. Case study 2: gvSIG CE (gvsigce.org)
Purpose: Provide a full-featured desktop GIS with advanced
processing capabilities.
Funding: Currently multiple investors.
Community: GIS users from multiple fields; academic, public
services, private businesses.

48. Further Food for thought:
"Academic computer science has an odd relationship with
software: Publishing papers about software is considered a
distinctly stronger contribution than publishing the software.
The historical reasons for this paradox no longer apply, but
their legacy remains."
Hafer & Kirkpatrik 2009:
Assessing Open Source Software as a Scholarly Contribution.
Communications of the ACM. 52(12), 126-129.