What are the most significant risks of open source software in systems engineering?

The Legal Minefield of OSS: Navigating license compatibility in open source software (OSS) is like trying to cross a legal minefield with a blindfold. One wrong step and boom – you're tangled in a web of legal jargon! From GPL to MIT, each OSS license has its own set of rules, like a moody cat with unpredictable temperaments. Mixing incompatible licenses? That's like trying to blend oil and water – a recipe for a legal soup nobody wants a taste of. Remember, in the world of OSS, your lawyer might just be your best friend.

Embarking on an OSS journey in my experience carries one big risk if you’re coming from a place where you’re used to leveraging commercial software. It’s a skills and mindset readiness of your devops team in managing the oss end to end. You need your engineers to be skilled and ready to troubleshoot and fix deep problems by themselves with the help of a community and not shift that accountability to the vendor. That is a big mental shift. It also means you need engineering expertise of the OSS who can actually fix it and release that fix. That has its own cost which you need your leadership to understand and buy into. There’s also the legal aspect to it. Your company may have restrictions to how you can contribute to open source projects.

From a developer's perspective, license compatibility is crucial when integrating various open-source software (OSS) components into a system. It ensures that the licenses of these components align with each other and with any legal or contractual obligations the developer or end-user may have. When selecting and combining OSS components, developers need to be mindful of how licenses interact with each other. If a component is licensed under a more restrictive license, it may impose certain obligations or limitations on the entire system. In such cases, it is essential to understand the implications and determine if the license aligns with the goals and requirements of the project.

I agree completely, OSS licensing can become extremely problematic with software packages that are included with product that could be sold. Even though it could provide a quick fix to an immediate product need, the long term ramifications of using the OSS and its associated licensing requirements could become a major problem in the future. Any startup that is trying to incorporate OSS into their SW product has to consider the ramifications of its use in the due diligence process for follow on funding or acquisition.

An open architecture requires the integration of a common computing environment, common user functions, and unique user functions; consequently, there are common physical, functional, and operational safety requirements to enable system of system integration ; consider including: ? Modular design to enable integration of common user functions, and unique user functions ? Modular and hierarchy segregation between high-level and low-level safety-critical functions ? On-going safety certification to enable system of system integration and safety assurance ? Common system safety validation and verification methods for software, firmware, hardware, environment, and human-related hazard controls

OSS poses some significant risks from QA perspective as below: 1. There are no standard QA process has been followed, so expect huge quality variabilities which often lack proper documentation and testing as well as it is crowd sourced. 2. OSS definitely lack the professional support compare to commercial alternatives. 3. OSS may rely on other OSS libraries which make it more challenging to manage dependencies and same time poses significant QA challenges. 4. Definitely accountability is very limited since it is developed by a distributed and diverse group of contributors.

I don't see any difference in QA between OSS and commercial product. There's nothing in commercial product that insures that there is a good engineering process. For OSS it is not guaranteed either, however as it is developed in an open kitchen format, you can look at it and evaluate by yourself. In short, I've seen closed-source solutions with terrible QA, and many OSS support the biggest infrastructure on the net (just think about Kafka for instance).

The Roller Coaster of OSS: Talking about quality assurance in OSS is like riding a roller coaster – thrilling, unpredictable, and not for the faint-hearted. One minute you're marveling at the genius of collective minds, the next you're plummeting into the abyss of bugs and glitches. Sure, OSS can be a treasure trove of innovation, but without the rigorous QA of commercial software, you might just find yourself patching holes in a sinking ship. So, buckle up, keep your bug spray handy, and enjoy the ride!

Using open-source software in systems engineering introduces risks such as heightened security vulnerabilities due to potentially unverified contributions. The quality and reliability of these software solutions can vary significantly, leading to issues with performance, compatibility, and stability. Additionally, the lack of consistent technical support can pose challenges during critical system failures. There are also legal concerns regarding licensing and copyright, which can result in compliance issues or litigation. Finally, integrating open-source software into larger, more complex systems may require specialized skills and increase time and labor costs.

One thing I find relevant is that choosing open-source software (OSS) introduces a distinct risk tied to uncertainties in its quality and reliability, contrasting with more structured commercial alternatives. OSS, often developed by a diverse volunteer community, lacks the rigorous testing and validation seen in commercial software. Support infrastructure, including documentation and maintenance services, may not match commercial standards. This communal approach increases vulnerability to bugs, errors, and security breaches, particularly when updates are irregular or technology becomes outdated. A careful evaluation and continuous monitoring of OSS components are essential, directly impacting system functionality and safety.

OSS has it's benefits but integration to company standards and proprietary software can be problematic. Evaluate integration points of importance and ensure OSS can meet the requirement / standards / policies that exist. Spending money to manage integration defeats purpose of OSS installation.

The OSS Jigsaw Puzzle: Integrating OSS into your systems? Picture yourself trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle where pieces keep changing shapes. Each OSS component is like a piece from a different puzzle box, and you're the brave soul trying to make them fit. It's a dance of adaptability, where you're constantly toeing the line between innovation and compatibility. And just when you think you've got it, surprise! An update rolls in, and the dance starts anew. In the grand ballet of system engineering, OSS is your most unpredictable partner.

The use of multiple OSS platforms has an inherent disadvantage of being integration sensitive. Though individual OSS platforms are supported by one or more businesses but they would not be able to advise on integration issues that arise from incompatible versions of other OSS platforms. To call compile a comprehensive dependency list and applying the same is quite an involved task and defies the very purpose of using OSS. A similar difficulty arises when the application in question is being upgraded to the new version. We have a recent project using Django for website and encountered these issues.

It’s important to also consider regulatory and safety requirements that are applicable to the system. The burden to certify OSS in safety-critical applications may not be worth the effort to implement and integrate it.

The integration complexity of open-source software poses challenges due to potential mismatches in standards, interfaces, and compatibility with commercial software. Dependencies on other OSS components and the dynamic nature of OSS, characterized by frequent changes, require careful planning and management for seamless integration. Addressing these challenges is essential to ensure OSS components harmonize effectively with existing system components, emphasizing the need for strategic planning in OSS integration within broader system architectures.

Open source software in engineering systems poses significant risks, primarily due to security vulnerabilities. Its public and collaborative development can expose it to more security risks and undiscovered bugs. Additionally, the absence of formal support and maintenance can jeopardize reliability, especially if the community backing diminishes. Compliance with diverse licensing requirements also presents legal challenges. These risks necessitate cautious management and rigorous assessment in engineering environments.

The priorities of the community that develops, maintains that software might shift over time. 1. they might decide to drop features that you rely on, 2. they might introduce dependencies with other software that you would prefer not to be reliant on.

Open source software is often constructed with minimal process controls. Furthermore, many open source projects are implemented using programming languages hostile to correctness. The risk of faulty software is compounded by the lack of well written and enforced system requirements.

Summarising and embracing open-source software (OSS) introduces distinct risks. Firstly, uncertainties in OSS quality and reliability, attributed to a volunteer-driven development approach, raise vulnerability to bugs and security issues. Second, the varied landscape of OSS licenses adds complexity, demanding careful alignment with intellectual property rights and security policies. Third, integrating OSS can be challenging and costly due to compatibility issues with commercial standards and the dynamic nature of OSS components. Navigating these risks requires continual evaluation, meticulous license scrutiny, and strategic integration planning for seamless system functionality and safety.

Support: The level of support and maintenance for open source projects heavily relies on the community. If a project loses community support, it may become challenging to address issues or obtain timely updates. Communication Challenges: Communication within open source communities can be challenging, especially when contributors are geographically dispersed and have different priorities.