PLM and Open Source Checking Tips

by Oleg on October 18, 2012 · 16 comments

Open Source Software (OSS) is a wonderful thing. For the last decade, open source changed the world of software development. PLM industry has their own open source rock stars. While I can see less hype around ‘open source’, I keep watching open source initiatives in PLM space. One of the things that very often debated in open source community is the definition of open source. In my view, the definition of open source provided by Wikipedia is getting better. Here is the one I captured today:

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is available in source code form: the source code and certain other rights normally reserved for copyright holders are provided under an open-source license that permits users to study, change, improve and at times also to distribute the software. Open-source software is very often developed in a public, collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) user-generated content or (legally defined) open content movements.[1]

However, this definition is still very vague. In order to prevent usage of the open-source software term as a meaningless marketing buzzword, we need to apply some rules. Usually, the discussion focuses on what type of OSS license is used. However, I think it is not enough. Few days ago, I bumped into the following article – How to evaluate open-source software. The article is short and worth reading. I found it very practical. It provides 7 checking tips for OSS: license, activity, age of project, unit test, code quality, basic use test, and modification test.

Does Open Source PLM fail the test?

There are few open-source PLM products, initiatives and projects I’m following. They are not equal and clearly cannot be compared. At the same time, I tried to poke open source PLM websites and tried to make some initial conclusion about how these products and projects are compatible with 7 points checking tips.

1. Aras PLM. Aras is the most visible player in open source PLM community. It includes a mature product, many reference customers and well-established community of developers and service providers. Aras is using “enterprise open source” term to describe Aras model. You can get most of the information about Aras including licensing here. Aras relies on several open source licenses. You can get Aras’ source, but for my best knowledge, it requires a specific subscription level.

2. Open PLM. Open PLM project started few years ago. Open PLM focuses on ECM (I assume “content management”) around product data. The project is using Django framework and includes some other OSS like Apache and PostgreSQL. It uses GPLv3 license.

3. Open ERP / PLM. Another project I tracked connected to open source PLM space. This project is connected to OmniaSolutions. You can get more details here. It features many typical PLM functionalities starting from CAD integration and ending with BOM management and Manufacturing processes. Here is the link to Open PLM ERP wiki with documentation, video and downloads.

4. Open Source PLM activity from Prodeos. The website is a codeplex link to variety of PLM-related project and tools. Most of them related to Aras PLM and quite outdated (2010). Nevertheless, the project list is interesting and includes some utilities you can probably use not only for Aras – Office connector, AutoCAD 2011 connector, 3Dxml viewer, etc. It uses Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL).

What is my conclusion? Aras is clearly the most mature and dominant player in “open source PLM” eco-system. From the standpoint of compliance to 7 points check list, I think three of them are the most important – license, update history and code quality / unit test. Coming to OSS, you first check you license rules. Then you check how many people are using that and trying to see how to re-use the code for your project. I’m interested to learn about additional OSS PLM initiatives. If you know them, please contact me. Also, I’m very interested to learn more about your open-source experience. Speak your mind.

Best, Oleg

Share

Tagged as: Aras, Open ERP PLM, Open PLM, Open Source, PLM, Prodeos

  • Steve

    Great post Oleg. You’ve exposed an important issue regarding the use of the term “open source”. However, I think the use of this term does as much damage to people who inappropriately use it as it provides benefits.

  • MarcL

    Important topic and good post Oleg. I think Steve’s comment
    is accurate as well. My sense is that there’s a fair amount of misunderstanding about open source, even though we use it
    everyday with Amazon, Google, government sites, our cell phones and many of the
    systems we run at our own companies.

    If you’re curious to better understand open source at Aras,
    you can check out http://www.aras.com/Community/blogs/aras_corporate_blog/archive/2012/05/17/enterprise-open-source-the-aras-way.aspx

    One thing’s for sure, oss is only increasing in scope,
    adoption and prevalence… there’s no going back… it’s the format of the future
    and the basis for the Cloud, that much is clear.

    MarcL

    http://www.aras.com

  • EdA

    I’d have to agree with Steve and, oddly, Marc.
    Aras is the perfect example of “people who inappropriately use” OSS.
    Oleg references the “What is Aras’ Enterprise Open Source model” topic, which includes much hand-waving but tellingly omits any mention of the Aras Innovator license itself. Marc links to “my entire response on our open source approach” which entirely fails to discuss the essential role of the Aras Innovator license. This isn’t surprising: it’s a rather onerous license for closed source, and seriously contradicts open source intent and operation. See if you agree: http://www.aras.com/support/downloads/downloadInnovator.aspx
    On the other hand, Aras has pioneered a very clever marketing trick. All PLM solutions are composed of a core framework with the capability for user configuration and enhancements. The “Aras Innovator solution” is not qualitatively different from these other PLMs. However, Aras positions the closed Innovator framework as the “Enterprise” chunk, while users’ configuration and enhancements may be shared as “Open Source”. Pretty slick.
    Of course, other providers could declare their PLM as “Enterprise Open Source” — without changing their own closed-source licenses! — if they also label community contributions as “open source solutions”. Imagine Dassault calling SolidWorks an “enterprise open source CAD” because they host http://www.3dcontentcentral.com, and you get the concept.
    The most clever part? There is always “a fair amount of misunderstanding” regarding Aras’ closed-is-open definition of open source. This provides Aras with many opportunities for explanation, and they really can’t lose: regardless of whether you accept their definition, they get lots of valuable “open source PLM” links from web discussions (like this one) doubting their claim. Marc always stands ready to state, once again, that even if Aras Innovator is closed, the “Aras Innovator solution” is just another OSS like Android and Red Hat.
    As someone else observed in a similar Razorleaf discussion, “Essentially what Aras has done here is to abuse the commons by calling what is closed, open”.

  • MarcL

    Ed – It’s been a while. funny how every time you take issue you don’t mention that you own a company that sells a PDM.

    Not sure why you don’t make a stink about http://www.openntf.org/Internal/home.nsf … same structure… except the runtime platform’s not a freely available download with community source for subscribers. Gotta take that one up with IBM.

    Seriously though, you can get, use, study, modify and redistribute our enterprise solutions, they’re osi oss (permissive lic even). If they’re not for you, that’s OK by us. And if you don’t like that only other subscribers get the security of platform source access and priority on roadmap definition, that’s fine too.

    It’s not a science project. We’re building the enterprise PLM platform of tomorrow. Not everyone understands what global companies want. We think we do… secure control over your own destiny.

    MarcL
    http://www.aras.com

  • EdA

    Marc, in a discussion of “misunderstood” licensing models, I didn’t think it was particularly relevant that our company, Active Sensing, sells PDXpert PLM under a plain vanilla software licensing model. Further, I confess that I’m just one of several partners in ASI.

    Nonetheless, if you think it important: Yes, PDXpert PLM has a closed source core and can be configured by users to meet their needs, and these customizations could be shared within a community. Yes, the PDXpert server is built on the same Microsoft Windows, .NET and SQL stack as the Aras Innovator framework. And yes, using the Aras definition, we could call PDXpert an “enterprise open source PLM” without changing much of anything. And yes, absolutely, we’d feel pretty weird about doing so.
    But if you insist on full disclosure, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity: http://www.BuyPLM.com. Thank you!

  • Philippe J.

    Gents,
    See Wikipedia about Open Source initiative : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative
    This organisation maintain the list of open source licences : http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
    If a PLM software uses a licences which belongs to this list, It is an open source software. If not, the software can’t be said open source.

    Philippe J.
    http://www.openplm.org

  • MarcL

    I’m confused, if you ‘could’ share/release PDXpert’s solutions under an OSI license, and ‘could’ encourage collaborative development and innovation… why wouldn’t you? why haven’t you?

    I would encourage you and the other partners at your company to move to an open model (however you want to structure it, it’s better than completely closed), and who cares what you call it (just don’t call it oss). I firmly believe it’d be a positive step for the PLM industry and for your company as well. But that’s just my perspective.

    MarcL
    http://www.aras.com

  • EdA

    But there remains a question of defining solutions that use some of each, say an open source core with closed source plug-ins, or vice versa. For example, this article highlights that “openness” depends on how many parts of the total solution are OSS, and where they sit in the stack: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10244853-16.html?tag=newsBlogPromoArea.2

  • EdA

    Perhaps the confusion stems from an assumption that community contributions – in order to be open – must be explicitly licensed.

    But surely the assumption is incorrect.

    Undoubtedly you’ve noticed that OSS can be little more than bare files with uneven quality or documentation. Casual users find uncurated OSS painful to wade through.

    In contrast, we actively collaborate with our customers, jointly developing complete, coherent, documented solutions. The extra value we provide appeals to our typical user, who has little interest in – and often no IT resources for – mastering PLM system rules and interfaces.

    Of course, users can create their own solutions based on our documentation. But customers purchase PDXpert to solve engineering data management problems, not because custom development is fun or economically justifiable.

    So we’re the first stop for advice and assistance; we respond with expertise to enhance their work, explore tradeoffs, describe and even test the solution. In this context, our customers’ contributions are open, with the added advantage of being curated and augmented to increase their utility to others.

    We’ve never controlled these solutions by license. All contributions are simply part of the published application notes, acknowledged by all participants as freely downloadable and modifiable. We ask for nothing in return, not even that derivative works also be OSS.

    Yes, ASI “could” apply an OSI license to our solutions, but we think such a license is more restrictive, not less. Meeting the Aras EOS definition is trivial and unappealing.

    Enterprise Open Source is the OSS equivalent of cloud washing, and Aras can do better.

  • beyondplm

    Thanks for the comment! It is important to discover how people and companies are using “open source” term. So, to me it mostly educational post.

  • beyondplm

    Marc, thanks! I think, even after 5 years of Aras innovation with enterprise open source, it is still very much confusing term. Thanks for links! Best, Oleg

  • beyondplm

    EdA, thanks for comments and thank you for the discussion! I think, there are lots of confusion about Aras and open source. As you said, Aras pioneered in a specific angle of innovation related to PLM, enterprise and open source. So far, it was successful. It will be interested to see what will be future Aras trajectory and for how long they will keep themselves affiliated with open source. Best, oleg

  • EdA

    Marc/Oleg, my sincere apologies for the multiple postings… these were some weirdness with Disqus over the course of 4 days, and I kept having to rewrite (and re-remember) my points.

  • beyondplm

    np. thanks for you comments and discussion!

  • Julien B.

    Hi Oleg,

    Many thanks ! Yet another very interesting article!
    A new project has emerged in the world of Open Source PLM: http://www.docdokuplm.com/.
    This project is based on a Java stack and received the Open World Forum 2012 Innovation award.

    To be continued …

  • beyondplm

    Thanks for the comment and link!

Previous post:

Next post: