NGMN & Open Source Sudhagar Chinnaswamy Principal Software Engineer

“Open” Means Different Things “Open Architectures” Modularized software functions assembled to enable interchangeability with defined intra-module interfaces “Open Source” Platform built through a robust development community in which source code is freely available to be distributed “Open Standards” Based on functions standardized and available via specification from one of many SDOs “Open Ecosystem” Platform environment in which vendors compete on a level playing field, with common access to tools and information “Open APIs” Published, exposed APIs that enable applications and network functions connected to the platform to interact with each other

Open Standards vs. Open Source Define interfaces well in human-readable documents Define behavior with some ambiguity Usually move slowly Leave interoperability testing to others, e.g., users, integrators Sometimes provide open source implementations Open Source Define interfaces well in code Define behavior in code so it can be tested and understood Move and adapt quickly Can do interoperability testing as part of development Often implement open standards

Why Open Source? Avoid vendor lock-in Have a seat at the table Title Goes Here 11/28/2018 Why Open Source? Avoid vendor lock-in Have a seat at the table Faster Innovation Easier Interoperability & Integration You’ll note I didn’t say cost Cost Flexibility Usability Easy Difficult Low High Build Buy Open Source Avoid vendor lock-in: multiple suppliers of the same code base Have a seat at the table: development is open to “user” input – Not just vendors dictate the terms Faster innovation: more and more diverse contributors Easier integration: combine multiple solutions if they share an open source base Define interfaces well In human-readable documents Define behavior with some ambiguity Usually move slowly Leave interoperability testing to others, e.g., users, integrators Sometimes provide open source implementations Define interfaces well In code Define behavior in code so it can be tested and understood Move and adapt quickly Can do interoperability testing as part of development Often implement open standards © 2015 Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL—For Internal Use Only

Open Source Lock-In the Equivalent of Vendor Lock-In The Risks of “Open” Number of Open Source projects proliferating beyond supportability, risks becoming new “proprietary” Open Source Lock-In the Equivalent of Vendor Lock-In “Openwashing” (2009, Michelle Thorn, Mozilla): To spin a product or company as open, although it is not “Fauxpen” (2009, Marsosudiro): A description of software that claims to be open source, but lacks the full freedoms required by the Open Source Definition Increasing risk of selecting the wrong open source project for adoption

Defining NGMN Direction on Open Source NGMN should recognize that the proliferation of open source projects creates opportunity and poses an innovation risk PROPOSAL: NGMN should conduct a thorough analysis of open source projects* Classify / Categorize open source projects based on relevance and impact to mobility (Metrics to be defined by working group. Example on next slide.) Explicitly (publicly) endorse open source projects that meet a defined set of criteria determined through the analysis, as agreed-upon by the NGMN partners and Board Publish a NGMN White Paper in 2016 on Open Source in 5G May be in collaboration with one or more open source projects *Note: Brocade offers to lead work item

Example : Defining “Open” in Open Source Title Goes Here 11/28/2018 Example : Defining “Open” in Open Source Who can contribute? Who does contribute? How are decisions made? Who can comment? Who can vote? What license does it use? Who can and “does” are two different things? Is it the “vendor” who contributes most or is it the “user”? Who can vote? Is the one who makes more contribution? Or the one who writes fat checks to the project? © 2016 Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. CONFIDENTIAL—For Internal Use Only