# Open-source software assessment methodologies

Several methods have been created to define an assessment process for free/open-source software. Some focus on some aspects like the maturity, the durability and the strategy of the organisation around the open-source project itself. Other methodologies add functional aspects to the assessment process.

## Existing methodologies

There are more than 20 different OSS evaluation methods.
* Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) from Capgemini
* Open Source Maturity Model (OSMM) from Navica
* Open Source Maturity Model (OSSMM) by Woods and Guliani
* Methodology of Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS)
* Open Business Readiness Rating (OpenBRR)
* Open Business Quality Rating (OpenBQR)
* QualiPSo
* QualiPSo Model for Open Source Software Trustworthiness (MOSST)
* Towards A Trustworthiness Model For Open Source Software: How to evaluate Open Source Software
* QualOSS – Quality of Open Source
* Evaluation Framework for Open Source Software
* A Quality Model for OSS Selection
* Atos Origin Method for Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software (QSOS)
* Observatory for Innovation and Technological transfer on Open Source software (OITOS)
* Framework for OS Critical Systems Evaluation (FOCSE)

## Comparison
### Comparison criteria

Stol and Babar have proposed a comparison framework for OSS evaluation methods. Their framework lists criteria in four categories: criteria related to the context in which the method is to be used, the user of the method, the process of the method, and the evaluation of the method (e.g., its validity and maturity stage).
The comparison presented below is based on the following (alternative set of) criteria:
* Seniority : the methodology birth date.
* Original authors/sponsors : original methodology authors and sponsoring entity (if any)
* License : Distribution and usage license for the methodology and the resulting assessments
* Assessment model :
** Detail levels : several levels of details or assessment granularity
** Predefined criteria : the methodology provides some predefined criteria
** Technical/functional criteria : the methodology permits the use of domain specific criteria based on technical information or features
* Scoring model :
** Scoring scale by criterion
** Iterative process : the assessment can be performed and refined using several steps improving the level of details
** Criteria weighting : it is possible to apply weighting on the assessed criteria as part of the methodology scoring model
* Comparison : the comparison process is defined by the methodology

### Comparison chart

| Criteria | OSMM Capgemini | OSMM Navica | QSOS | OpenBRR | OpenBQR | OpenSource Maturity Model |
| Seniority | 2003 | 2004 | 2004 | 2005 | 2007 | 2008 |
| Original authors/sponsors | Capgemini | Navicasoft | Atos Origin | Carnegie Mellon Silicon Valley, SpikeSource, O'Reilly, Intel | University of Insubria | QualiPSo project, EU commission |
| License | Non-free license, but authorised distribution | Assessment models licensed under the Academic Free License | Methodology and assessments results licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License | Assessments results licensed under a Creative Commons license | Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License | Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License |
| Assessment model | Practical | Practical | Practical | Scientific | Practical | Scientific |
| Detail levels | 2 axes on 2 levels | 3 levels | 3 levels or more (functional grids) | 2 levels | 3 levels | 3 levels |
| Predefined criteria | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Technical/functional criteria | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Scoring model | Flexible | Flexible | Strict | Flexible | Flexible | Flexible |
| Scoring scale by criterion | 1 to 5 | 1 to 10 | 0 to 2 | 1 to 5 | 1 to 5 | 1 to 4 |
| Iterative process | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Criteria weighting | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Comparison | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |