27th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 2005.
DOI: 10.1109/iti.2005.1491205
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An exploratory study for effective COTS and OSS product marketing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other ways of participating in the OSS community, such as providing feedback and reporting bugs (Holck et al 2005, Merilinna andMatinlassi 2006) or proposing new features and trial implementations of these features (Tuma 2005, Merilinna andMatinlassi 2006), may be more cost-effective for such respondents. Our results support the observations that most projects did not have a managed, comprehensive component repository (Dagdeviren et al 2005). The results show that learning, developing gluecode, adaptation, and maintenance are the highest costs (with median value 3 and upward skewness), while consulting costs and license fees are the lowest (with median value 2).…”
Section: Discussion Of Rq4supporting
confidence: 87%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Other ways of participating in the OSS community, such as providing feedback and reporting bugs (Holck et al 2005, Merilinna andMatinlassi 2006) or proposing new features and trial implementations of these features (Tuma 2005, Merilinna andMatinlassi 2006), may be more cost-effective for such respondents. Our results support the observations that most projects did not have a managed, comprehensive component repository (Dagdeviren et al 2005). The results show that learning, developing gluecode, adaptation, and maintenance are the highest costs (with median value 3 and upward skewness), while consulting costs and license fees are the lowest (with median value 2).…”
Section: Discussion Of Rq4supporting
confidence: 87%
“…The following motivations for using OSS components were taken from the literature Dagdeviren et al (2005) and Li et al (2005a) 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 of OSS community and share values of the OSS movement; (h) gain access to products which are not available on the brand-name market. The survey questions were based on the above motivations.…”
Section: Results Of Rq1mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…To answer this question, we formulated possible criteria to be considered when evaluating OSS components from [3,12] as following: − Requirements compliance − Architecture compliance − Quality of components (security, reliability, usability etc.) − Functionality − OSS licensing term − Price − Reputation of components or supplier − Quality of documentation − Expected support from the OSS community (updating, bug fixing etc.)…”
Section: Results Of Rq12mentioning
confidence: 99%