Assuring Users When Closed Software Becomes Open?

joeldg asks: "I just recently decided to go open source with a project I have been doing for some time. After initially going open source I have had an avalanche of questions from users about what 'Open Source' means and how it will affect them. Many are scared of the implications and the broad new sweeping changes others could make in the project. My question is how do you alleviate the fears of over 5,000 dedicated users and get them to accept the idea of the project going open source and also keep some track of the project so that you can direct the current userbase to new sites running the code?"

Kinda obvious.

[Trusty Penfold]

Write a FAQ [enhydra.org] like every other [ossolution.biz] open source project [abisource.com] in the world [psu.edu]

By example?

[Surye]

I would think that by now, you could show how many different projects have been very successfull with the Open Source model, and there hasn't been a problem of just any user doing what ever they want. Simply show the system in effect.

What broad new sweeping changes others could make?

[ninthbit]

Someone still controls the original project. Going open source just means that the software will have a broader developer base, thus more features quicker.

Or am I missing something?

So sell them something.

[orthogonal]

I have had an avalanche of questions from users about what 'Open Source' means and how it will affect them. Many are scared of the implications....

Sometimes, people don't believe a thing's valuable unless they have to pay for it. (And often with good reason; ad-ware's a case in point.)

Some other people don't feel they have any control over you, without having paid you, and thus having something (theoretically) to sue about.

So offer to sell these doubters a support contract, or specialized installation or customization.

Like this:

[3-State Bit]

"As long as you use MY version, it's the same as closed-source, except that I receive contributions more readily, and can't start charging you for it [or you'd get my version elsewhere]. But if I start fucking you over and my version starts sucking, because I'm trying to limit what you're able to do, then you can find a version of MY SOFTWARE that doesn't include my fucking you over, and it's totally legit. Imagine if Microsoft had to deal with the idea that if they did things to alienate their users, their users would run not simply WINE, which is okay at running SOME windows programs, but WINDOWS ITSELF, only without the crippling antifeatures. At the most basic level, open source means that if your "benign dictatorship" isn't all that benign, they can get the same dictatorship with all the benignity they want, for FREE, elsewhere. It's democracy. It's Freedom. It's.... OPEN SOURCE."

I am the gatekeeper.

[Ouroboro]

I think that it probably important to let them know that even though the source is now available, not just anybody will be allowed to access the "official" version. You are still the gatekeeper, and what gets done to the code goes through first.

gatekeeper/dictator; you have the power

[Khopesh]

oss only pretends to be in free community; control of projects is far from democratic (or other insert-free-ruling-system-here) ... in fact, it's very much despotic.

you are dictator of your project, everything goes through you before finalization. if you so chose, only your updates will see the project page. anything else would be an offshoot and possibly not even recognized in any of your official documents.

Re:gatekeeper/dictator; you have the power

[Trelane]

For an individual tree, yes. Is also a form of QA, since a given patch must convince the maintainer (either directly or via a large group) that the patch is correct. However, the program itself is very democratic, since the user has complete control over his/her own tree, and can publish this tree (AKA fork the project) independently of the original. Thus, in effect, it is a democracy, since each user has absolute control over the program that they actual ly run, although they might not have much influence with the original project. (Now, as many would point out, most users don't exercise this and/or don't particularly care, but there are those who do, and it leads to a miriad of cool possibilities, and much more control than a config file or especially a silly Registry can provide.)

Contrast this with closed source, where the company/programmer is truly a dictator, and wields extremely strict control over the program.

Re:gatekeeper/dictator; you have the power

[Ouroboro]

oss only pretends to be in free community; control of projects is far from democratic (or other insert-free-ruling-system-here) ... in fact, it's very much despotic.

I don't think there is any pretending going on. I know of no OSS that are true free in the way you imply. OSS is free in that you are free to take the code, and do whatever you want with it, so long as you follow the terms of the license. I am free to not accept any changes that you want to make to my version of the software. The mechanism that I setup to control changes to my version of the software is completly up to me. Whether that system is a beneavolent dictatorship, democracy, or a commity does not effect the Liberty, which is the true free in Free Software, inheirent in OSS.

I am the keymaster

[walt-sjc]

When told of the project's move to open source, Source Busters was called:

PETER
You could accept the fact that this city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

MAYOR
What do you mean, biblical?

RAY
What he means is Old Testament biblical, Mr. Mayor. Real wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!

EGON
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes! Volcanoes!

WINSTON
The dead rising from the grave!

PETER
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

-- Sorry, I could't resist!

More than a source code release

[Meowing]

From the looks of things, you're not just releasing the sources but also getting away from hosting the system. I'd imagine that users are going to be a lot more concerned about who is doing the hosting from this point on than how the software is distributed.

One possibility would be to keep a page with a list of sites that offer the service. A nice plus would be to keep track of user ratings as well -- maybe even keep hosting one board (on your own site or even on SF) where users can discuss and review the options.

One suggestion

[Anonymous Cowdog]

It would help to have a real summary of what the project is on the SourceForge Summary page. The way you have the Summary page set up now, when your (probably not-quite-as-geeky-as-you) users look at the pointer you provide them to SourceForge, they are going to be overwhelmed by how technical and intimidating it all looks.

I've seen a lot of SourceForge (and other, for that matter) projects that have this same issue. When you go to the Summary page to try to figure out what a project is all about, it instead says something like: Updated new version to fix build issues. Which is almost exactly the kind of content you have on yours now. Not very informative, and not very reassuring to normal users who tend to fear the unknown.

So while this would help your case a lot, I think it is also good advice in general for all SourceForge project owners: Write a blurb that clearly explains what your project is about! Hope this helps.

Re:One suggestion

[Anonymous Cowdog]

Replying to my own post... how lame is that. One more thing.

I know the project has a home page, at another link, with a good overview. But that is missing the point. The current users, when told the project is going open source, are going to be provided (in all likelihood) with the SourceForge link, and it _is_ going to look intimidating the way that summary is written now. They might even wonder if this will be the new face of the project, replacing the home page they are familiar with. This is true even if they are explicitly told that the old home page will continue, because users do not read... they just skim. And skimming the SourceForge page will freak them out.

Re:One suggestion

[mystran]

Q: "Where can I find program called x"
A: "Freshmeat"

If a project has a freshmeat page (which all software should have) it's more likely place for people to go than Sourceforge.

Another thing is that even if I happen to be developer myself, I often find it hard to understand what a project is about by looking at those SF project summaries. I can only imagine how a less skilled end-user feels :)

Just explain your intentions

[jki]

on your site [qboard.org] you say:

Due to overwhelming requests and inquiries about specialized customization and personal control over the boards, we've decided to go one step further with our goal to do more than everyone else out there: Open Source

Maybe, if that's what you are planning to do, you should explain clearly that you or - qboard.org - will always be the source for downloading "your version" and that qboard being open source only makes your possibilities for providing new and consistent features with potentially less effort. Explain, that you will still keep control of this one release althought there might be others as well - which might be suitable for some. You are just opening new possibilities, this should not be anything to fear of - if everything looks and is under control.

Re:Just explain your intentions

[jki]

...oh, I just noticed that I was just echoing what 3-State Bit said earlier [slashdot.org] (althought his response was much more street-wise :))

"As long as you use MY version, it's the same as closed-source, except that I receive contributions more readily, and can't start charging you for it [or you'd get my version elsewhere]. But if I start fucking you over and my version starts sucking, because I'm trying to limit what you're able to do, then you can find a version of MY SOFTWARE that doesn't include my fucking you over, and it's totally legit. Imagine if Microsoft had to deal with the idea that if they did things to alienate their users, their users would run not simply WINE, which is okay at running SOME windows programs, but WINDOWS ITSELF, only without the crippling antifeatures. At the most basic level, open source means that if your "benign dictatorship" isn't all that benign, they can get the same dictatorship with all the benignity they want, for FREE, elsewhere. It's democracy. It's Freedom. It's.... OPEN SOURCE."

what does opensource mean?

[steveheath]

if you have a lot of questions, start a FAQ and refer folks to it.. it's been suggested b4 and it's a good suggestion.

my subject line asks a decent question tho'.. and I'm guessing that's what most of your questions get back to.

From a customer's point of view, open source means several things:
It is a quality assurance. You're obviously confident enough to show the world how good your code is :) also you will expect comment from your particular community on howto improve your code.
It is additional coding resource to get jobs done quicker.
It is control for your customer in that they can use your code as a toolkit to build features that they would otherwise not be available.
It doesn't remove you as the project controller and you still maintain the same control over the released code as before.

Note that I am assuming that although the qboard project is winding down, you or your team will still be 'controlling' qboard's path?

easily the stupidest /. question ever...

[Eivind]

When the customers ask questions, you do the obvious thing: You *answer* those questions. In this case that is extremely simple to do, and can happen for example in a FAQ as suggested by other people.

The important point is that Open Source does not mean anyone can make random changes to the sourcecode. It means that anyone can suggest changes to the sourcecode. You are offcourse free to accept or reject them as you see fit.

To the customers, there is absolutely no disadvantages whatsoever to this arrangement, and a metric ton of advantages. This should be easy to explain.

The transition.

[Mattygfunk1]

....how do you alleviate the fears of over 5,000 dedicated users and get them to accept the idea of the project going open source...

I think they are right to have some fears. When a project goes open source the number of people looking at the code jumps significantly, and therefore the potential number of bugs / security holes that could be found. It is likely that the current version of their software will need to be updated quickly to reflect patches to the holes.

I'm certainly not saying that going open source is a Bad Thing, just that does have short term negative consequences for users.

------
__mmmmmmmmmmmm_ katrina galleries grumble grumble grumble [katrinagalleries.com]

Re:The transition.

[sohp]

How is finding and patching bugs and security holes a negative consequence for users? No one will be forced to upgrade, unlike the customers of certain MegaSized companies.

In fact, it rolls the other way -- the author will be able to say that with additional eyes and resources looking at the code, small problems that have been nagging users but haven't been high enough priority to get fixed may finally get looked at an patched. A win for all.

Similar Sutuation...

[hahnfeld]

I also had a popular closed source project that went Open Source. I think people are naturally resistant to change, and unlike a project that was Open Source form the beginning, a lot of your users probably aren't very familiar with Open Source. I think the biggest thing is to give the whole thing time. I had a few good contributors/users fall away when I made the switch, and I got a lot of protests from other users, but in the end the project is much healthier in the Open Source world. Once people started to realize that Open Source isn't a big evil concept (well, not too evil, anyway) they started to come back, and a whole new crowd also joined in. The whole process took about a year, but it was well worth it in the end.

Now many of the same people who were opposed to Open Source in the beginning are actually contributing code to the project now.