• Free Internet Portals Open Source
• Popular Open Source Software
• Open Source Portal Software Comparison Calculator

Comparison of open data portal solutions. Ask Question Asked 5 years, 3 months ago. What open data portal solutions are available and how do they compare? Side questions. Personally, I'd rather see us use more open source software, but it seems unlikely we'd be able to put something together that could compete with ESRI's offerings, at. Download Liferay Portal for free. The world's leading open source portal. Liferay Portal is the world's leading enterprise open source portal framework, offering integrated Web publishing and content management, an enterprise service bus and service-oriented architecture, and compatibility with all major IT infrastructure.

SharePoint: The most common large enterprise intranet and collaboration solution

Open-source Scripts List & Software Directory OpenSourceCMS.com is a central resource for all things related to Open-source CMS and gives you the opportunity to “try out” most of the best Open-source CMS tools in the world without marketing fluff or sales people.

Still the most used platform for intranets, portals, and digital collaboration in medium to large enterprises today, Microsoft SharePoint began life as a document management solution over a decade ago. The new features in its latest incarnation, the brand new SharePoint 2016, show the continued vitality of the platform and it remains the proverbial 800lb gorilla in the industry.

Although Microsoft robustly supports the product and its evolution, it is worth noting that SharePoint has not always kept up with the latest developments in collaboration, which the tech giant is now frequently adding instead as cross-product capabilities such as Office Graph and Office Groups. Microsoft has however recently added much needed basic native mobile app support to SharePoint as well, but mobile functionality is still not the platform's strength.

Overall, however, SharePoint is a rich and capable platform that can meet many sophisticated enterprise needs, but its very complexity and aging user experience is also one of its signature challenges as well.

There's a long standing debate -- my take on it -- on whether a document management solution is necessarily a good intranet or collaboration platform. The respected AIIM society noted last year that many SharePoint efforts have not met with high levels of success, according to their members. That said, most enterprises already have SharePoint licenses and a very clear business case often has to be made on why to invest in additional software. I should also note, that there are indeed a good number of successful intranets running SharePoint today.

With corporate emphasis these days shifting to social collaboration and lightweight messaging solutions to enable their teams, SharePoint sometimes feels a little heavy weight. Microsoft's acquisition of Yammer a few years back still raises questions for Microsoft about how all their products should fit together to enable collaboration in the workplace.

Therefore, for many practitioners, you'll start on a journey with intranets, portals, and collaboration in most organizations by having to at least consider SharePoint on the short list, although the best approach is almost always to find a solution that directly supports your actual business objectives.

Additional Reading

Jive: Born social for the enterprise

The Jive platform and the company behind it is one of the original pioneers of social collaboration and online community. Jive's popular community-based intranet and collaboration platforms is often cited as 'born social' from the ground up, instead of later adapted to today's newer, more participative communication models, sometimes well after the fact.

Unlike many portal and intranet platforms, Jive can be used with a full range of audiences and supports stakeholders of every variety, from employee-only or customer-only, to everyone. It also has best-in-class smart device support including individual native mobile apps optimized for intranets, real-time messaging, and employee directories. Jive also integrates with SharePoint and Google Docs as well, and even has its own app store for integrations with popular productivity apps.

Jive is also one of the few pure-play companies that only offers one product-line centered around intranets, portals, and collaboration. As a result, Jive likes to point out that other enterprise software companies which offer the kitchen sink in terms of categories of software products are perhaps not as invested in making the very best possible platform for connecting people and information.

Jive continues to rapidly evolve the platform, and it is robust and mature. As a consequence, Jive is generally on the short list of most organizations seriously considering a contemporary intranet or collaboration solution, even as the company continues to grow and evolve.

Additional Reading:

The IBM Connections Family: An industrial-strength collaboration, content, intranet, and portal platform

IBM has been investing heavily in social collaboration for years now and the results show in its industry-leading Connections platform, which has been extended into an entire family of Connections products that 'infuse' social features across conversations, content, documents, and files.

The Connections platform is the company's flagship enterprise social network, which I complimented in my last roundup a while back, and my assessment remains true today.

Connections goes well beyond the basic enterprise social network and offers full-fledged integration with the entire collaborative experience, from e-mail and content management to unified communication and all the standard office productivity suites. Connections offers the extended feature set you'd expect from one of the most mature and advanced enterprise collaboration suites available including social analytics, intranet integration, and APIs. As you'd expect, mobile support is excellent as well.

IBM Connections version 5.5, the latest incarnation of the product, shows that IBM is committed to bringing new capabilities in a space that overall has not seen that much innovation in the last several years. These new capabilities attempt to bring needed order to the vast amounts of information that collaboration platforms produce over time by improving search, navigation, and organization. New mobile support includes an advanced editor to allow sophisticated on-the-fly editing on the road. IBM Connections is full spectrum like Jive, allowing employees to easily and securely collaborate with customers and business partners.

The IBM Connections Family itself -- socially enabling numerous modes of digital collaboration -- has grown quite formidable as well, though at the risk of creating a complex user experience with some customers according to my industry conversations. The Connection Family includes the following capabilities today, in addition to the core IBM Connections product:

• IBM Connections Content Manager: Provides a social networking and content management experience within IBM Connections communities.
• IBM Connections Docs: A socially enabled online office productivity suite including word processing and spreadsheets.
• IBM Connections Files: Provides an on-premises file sharing and file management environment for organizations in a similar way to Box or DropBox.
• IBM Connections Suite: Provides social networking, real-time social communications and content management capabilities in an on-premises delivery model.
• Vantage for IBM Connections: Provides robust governance, policy enforcement and eDiscovery for IBM Connections.

Additional Reading:

Slack: The fast growth new collaboration darling

On the radar of very few organizations two years ago, Slack has become a virtual phenomenon in the last 18 months, for some very good reasons: The platform delivers real-time collaboration to teams using a uniquely effective and elegant user experience. Perhaps most importantly, Slack has also figured out a workable solution to solve the long-standing integration problem -- namely that we want to collaborate about our business information and content, but it's usually inaccessible within our collaboration tools -- the solution to which is clearly on demonstration with its vast and impressive list of connected apps.

Even more significantly, Slack has effective search that not only works within the messaging environment, but across all the files that users have worked on, turn the collaboration environment in an information discovery goldmine.

It's actually hard to describe the typical Slack experience, because it soon becomes so customized and adapted to a user, who configures the experience and then wires in the apps and data they use, that it becomes unique rather quickly. Slack does have a bit of a learning curve with its slash commands, which are usually second nature to developers -- and with whom the platform is particularly popular -- but most people seeking an effective new model for working can learn it without much trouble.

The issue comes in with the scale of what is essentially a forward-thinking messaging application: It gets noisy quickly and conversations aren't threaded, making ESN-style mass collaboration challenging, and perhaps even unlikely. To potentially address some of these issue and make the platform more attractive to large organizations, there is an enterprise-class version of Slack in the making.

In the meantime, with Slack growing exponentially (see chart), riding a consumer-like wave of adoption it's very likely it will show along side all your other communication and collaboration tools. Consequently, because of Slack and due to collaboration tool proliferation in companies today, I now suggest that most organizations will have to adopt a multi-layered collaboration strategy.

Additional Reading:

Salesforce Chatter and Community Cloud

Salesforce extends Wave Analytics to channel partnersWhile Salesforce has had a collaboration offering in their cloud platform -- in the form of Chatter -- for a good while now, the recent introduction of its Community Cloud product has transformed the company into a versatile and capable new contender in portals, intranets, and social collaboration.

As I explored recently when I took a look at Salesforce's traction in the space, Salesforce has finally achieved real velocity in enterprise collaboration, just as the space was beginning to look relatively stable in terms of credible offerings for large organizations.

Both Chatter and Community Cloud can be used for intranets and collaboration, with Community Cloud designed to be the more comprehensive of the two with pre-built business use cases, such as the Napili template for social customer care. To get the best from both services requires some customization, however, so in this respect it's more similar to SharePoint in being a powerful 'erector set' for communication and collaboration.

Both offerings are usable from the large enterprise down to individual users, and mobile support is quite capable. Community Cloud is still evolving and there is a lot more on the roadmap when I last spoke to product manager Mike Micucci, so it's one to keep a close eye on.

Additional Reading:

Yammer: Microsoft's more consumerized enterprise social network

Any list of major collaboration tools would be remiss without including Yammer, Microsoft's other major platform for enterprise collaboration. While not a strong intranet or portal platform, Yammer excels at workplace discussion and knowledge sharing.

Used at more than 200,000 organizations today, Yammer is not quite as popular as it once was yet is still quite common to encounter in companies large and small. Yammer has apps like Slack, and though its ecosystem is not as vibrant or large, Yammer makes a good effort to appeal to developers and supports some key open standards.

As a workhorse general purpose enterprise social network, Yammer is very capable, but it's lack of support for specific business use cases or a well-established way for companies to create them, is a growing oversight. Yammer Everywhere is one particularly notable feature that allows the service to be easily embedded elsewhere, in intranets and other internal Web experiences, to make them more social and collaborative. Yammer does have a very good mobile app as well.

Additional Reading:

Atlassian: A still-popular favorite for document collaboration

Atlassian's Confluence offering was perhaps the first highly successful enterprise wiki and remains a standard with a many companies that want a no-fuss, rock solid collaborative editing solution.

Quite effective at creating a more participative intranet, the company has tweaked the core product over the years, such as offering templates for common knowledge artifacts and work activities such as meeting notes, 'how to' articles, and product requirements. The latter is a nod to the fact that technical teams tend to find Confluence a comfortable home, a bit more that your typical user, due to the company's developer roots.

You can also integrate capabilities like workflow, drawing, even a Slack-like command line interface, and dozens of other capabilities with Atlassian's Confluence Marketplace, an app store-like showroom of powerful add-ons that can make Confluence very rich indeed for those that buy-in to the platform all the way. Atlassian also offers integration with its HipChat real-time messaging service.

Confluence does have a native mobile app but it's rather limited at this time, though mobile responsiveness is good.

Additional Reading:

SAP Jam: Serious, purpose-driven social collaboration

When SAP Jam was first announced to the market in 2012, it was one of the later entrants in the social collaboration space, but it took many of the lessons learned from the previous generation to heart.

Specifically, the industry as a whole had learned that collaboration without a focused business purpose doesn't produce the kind of game-changing results that was supposed to happen with social business. Consequently, Jam is aimed at directly enabling specific types of high-value business scenarios such as performance improvement, learning and development, employee recruiting and onboarding, collaborative bid selection, partner relationship management, and so on.

Jam is not necessarily a strong intranet or portal platform, but it's sometimes relentless emphasis on socially enabling key business activities is probably the best and most effective realization of business-centric collaboration currently on the market.

SAP Jam has done well in the marketplace, especially with the company's existing customers, and it has a decent mobile app as well.

Additional Reading:

Exo Platform: An open source enterprise collaboration solution

One of the only two open source offerings on this list, the eXo Platform has a long history and a good reputation for both collaboration and intranets.

eXo Platform is an all-in-one social intranet solution with the typical collaboration tools you'd come to expect such as wikis, forums, calendars and documents, which are integrated around activity streams, social networking and workspaces.

Exo has offered native mobile apps for a while, and it's open source roots can be especially appealing for those looking for a cost-effective solution where they can also extend the platform and add the features they need, while benefiting from a community to help maintain those additions.

Additional Reading:

Liferay: Open source collaboration and portals for all audiences

The second open source intranet, portal, and collaboration platform on this list, Liferay also has a good pedigree and history.

Unlike eXo, Liferay is full spectrum and can be used to create customer, partner, and employee communities and portals. It has effective mobile support and consistently ranks high on Gartner's Magic Quadrants.

Liferay's reputation for scalability and reliability is also well known and I've encountered some very large intranets developed with it.

Additional Reading:

This is a comparison of free and open-source software licenses. The comparison only covers software licenses with a linked article for details, approved by at least one expert group at the FSF, the OSI, the Debian project or the Fedora project. For a list of licenses not specifically intended for software, see List of free content licenses.

FOSS licenses[edit]

FOSS stands for 'Free and Open Source Software'. There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.^[1] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free.^[2] FSF's free software and OSI's open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the free software definition. The open source definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution, e.g. the case of the NASA Open Source Agreement, which requires the code to be 'original' work.^[3][4] The OSI does not endorse FSF license analysis (interpretation) as per their disclaimer.^[5]

The FSF's Free Software definition focuses on the user's unrestricted rights to use a program, to study and modify it, to copy it, and redistribute it for any purpose, which are considered by the FSF the four essential freedoms.^[6][7]The OSI's open-^[1]source criteria focuses on the availability of the source code and the advantages of an unrestricted and community driven development model.^[8]Yet, many FOSS licenses, like the Apache license, and all Free Software licenses allow commercial use of FOSS components.^[9]

General comparison[edit]

The following table compares various features of each license and is a general guide to the terms and conditions of each license. The table lists the permissions and limitations regarding the following subjects:

• Linking - linking of the licensed code with code licensed under a different license (e.g. when the code is provided as a library)
• Distribution - distribution of the code to third parties
• Modification - modification of the code by a licensee
• Patent grant - protection of licensees from patent claims made by code contributors regarding their contribution, and protection of contributors from patent claims made by licensees
• Private use - whether modification to the code must be shared with the community or may be used privately (e.g. internal use by a corporation)
• Sublicensing - whether modified code may be licensed under a different license (for example a copyright) or must retain the same license under which it was provided
• Trademark grant - use of trademarks associated with the licensed code or its contributors by a licensee

Other licenses that don't have information:

Approvals[edit]

This table lists for each license what organizations from the FOSS community have approved it – be it as a 'free software' or as an 'open source' license – , how those organizations categorize it, and the license compatibility between them for a combined or mixed derivative work. Organizations usually approve specific versions of software licenses. For instance, a FSF approval means that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) considers a license to be free software license. The FSF recommends at least 'Compatible with GPL' and preferably copyleft. The OSI recommends a mix of permissive and copyleft licenses, the Apache License 2.0, 2- & 3-clause BSD license, GPL, LGPL, MIT license, MPL 2.0, CDDL and EPL.

Free Internet Portals Open Source

1. ^The original version of the Artistic License is defined as non-free because it is overly vague, not because of the substance of the license. The FSF encourages projects to use the Clarified Artistic License instead.
2. ^But can be made compatible by upgrading to GPLv3 via the optional 'or later' clause added in most GPLv2 license texts.
3. ^But not with GPLv2 without 'or later' clause.
4. ^MPL 2.0 is GPL compatible unless marked 'Incompatible with Secondary Licenses'.
5. ^Listed as WTFPL.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Popular Open Source Software

1. ^ ^abOpen source licenses - Licenses by Name on opensource.org
2. ^'Various Licenses and Comments about Them'. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved August 8, 2011.
3. ^'Various Licenses and Comments about Them: NASA Open Source Agreement'. Free Software Foundation.
4. ^'Licenses by Name'. Open Source Initiative.
5. ^'Other Resources & Disclaimer'. Open Source Initiative. While the OSI acknowledges these as potentially helpful resources for the community, it does not endorse any content, contributors or license interpretations from these websites.[...]The OSI does not promote or exclusively favor any of the above resources, but instead mentions them as a neutral, separate third-party.
6. ^'Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement', Free Software Foundation, Inc
7. ^'What is Free Software', Free Software Foundation, Inc
8. ^opensource.org/about'Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.'
9. ^Popp, Dr. Karl Michael (2015). Best Practices for commercial use of open source software. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand. ISBN978-3738619096.
10. ^ ^ab'OSL 3.0 Explained'.
11. ^ ^abcd'affero.org: Affero General Public License version 2 (AGPLv2)'.
12. ^ ^abcdefg'the section 4 of the apache license version 2'.
13. ^ ^abcdefg'BSD license'.
14. ^'Using CC0 for public domain software'. Creative Commons. April 15, 2011. Retrieved May 10, 2011.
15. ^'Various Licenses and Comments about Them'. GNU Project. Retrieved April 4, 2015.
16. ^ ^abcc-by-4-0-and-cc-by-sa-4-0-added-to-our-list-of-free-licenses (2015)
17. ^ ^abcdefg'the eclipse public license version 1'.
18. ^Greenstein, Daniel; Wheeler, Brad (1 March 2007). 'Open Source Collaboration in Higher Education: Guidelines and Report of the Licensing and Policy Framework Summit for Software Sharing in Higher Education' – via scholarworks.iu.edu.
19. ^ ^abcde'EUPL compatible open source licences'.
20. ^ ^abc'EUPL text (1.1 & 1.2)'.
21. ^ ^ab[1]: section 13 of the GNU AGPLv3 license
22. ^ ^abcdefghi[2]: GNU licenses copyleft
23. ^ ^abc'the GNU Affero General Public License version 3'.
24. ^[3]: If library is under GPLv3
25. ^[4]: Linking with the GNU GPLv3
26. ^ ^abc'the GNU General Public License version 3'.
27. ^[5]: the section 4 of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3
28. ^ ^ab'the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3'.
29. ^ ^abcdefg'MIT License'.
30. ^ ^abcdefg'MPL version 2'.
31. ^Free Software Foundation. 'Various Licenses and Comments about Them'. Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
32. ^Free Software Foundation. 'To be GPL-Compatible has to be compatible with Licenses GNU GPLv3 and GNU GPLv2 – Free Software Foundation'. Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
33. ^Free Software Foundation. 'GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses – Free Software Foundation'. Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
34. ^Free Software Foundation. 'GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses – Free Software Foundation'. Software Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
35. ^Free Software Foundation. 'GPL-compatible Definition by FSF – Free Software Foundation'. GPL-compatible Definition. Free Software Foundation.
36. ^Free Software Foundation. 'GPL-compatible Definition previous version by FSF – Free Software Foundation'. GPL-compatible Definition. Free Software Foundation.
37. ^Open Source Initiative. 'The Approved Licenses'. License Information. Open Source Initiative.
38. ^Debian. 'Debian – License information'. Licenses. Debian.
39. ^'The DFSG and Software Licenses'. Debian wiki.
40. ^Fedora. 'Licensing – FedoraProject'. Licenses. Fedora Project.
41. ^Free Software Foundation. 'Apache License, Version 2.0'. Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
42. ^'Apple Public Source License (APSL), version 1.x'. Retrieved 2013-08-07.
43. ^ ^ab'Various Licenses and Comments about Them'. Free Software Foundation. 2016-01-05. Retrieved 2016-01-05.
44. ^'Licensing/Beerware'. Fedora Project. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
45. ^'3-clause BSD License at OSI'.
46. ^'[License-review] Please rename 'Free Public License-1.0.0' to 0BSD'. Open Source Initiative. Retrieved 2019-02-11.
47. ^'Various Licenses and Comments About Them - Common Development and Distribution License'. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2006-12-31.
48. ^Michael Larabel (6 October 2015). 'Ubuntu Is Planning To Make The ZFS File-System A 'Standard' Offering'. Phoronix.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
49. ^Dustin Kirkland (18 February 2016). 'ZFS Licensing and Linux'. Ubuntu Insights. Canonical.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
50. ^Are GPLv2 and CDDL incompatible? on hansenpartnership.com by James E.J. Bottomley 'What the above analysis shows is that even though we presumed combination of GPLv2 and CDDL works to be a technical violation, there's no way actually to prosecute such a violation because we can’t develop a convincing theory of harm resulting. Because this makes it impossible to take the case to court, effectively it must be concluded that the combination of GPLv2 and CDDL, provided you’re following a GPLv2 compliance regime for all the code, is allowable.' (23 February 2016)
51. ^Moglen, Eben; Choudhary, Mishi (26 February 2016). 'The Linux Kernel, CDDL and Related Issues'.
52. ^GPL Violations Related to Combining ZFS and Linux on sfconservancy.org by Bradley M. Kuhn and Karen M. Sandler (February 25, 2016)
53. ^ ^abc'Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation'.
54. ^'Frequently Answered Questions'. opensource.org. CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved
55. ^'Re: Creative Commons CC0'.
56. ^'License information'.
57. ^ ^ab'Licensing:Main'.
58. ^'Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 declared one-way compatible with GNU GPL version 3 — Free Software Foundation — working together for free software'.
59. ^Free Software Foundation. 'Educational Community License 2.0'. Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
60. ^[6]: 'We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software.'
61. ^ ^ab'Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses – Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?'. gnu.org. Retrieved 3 June 2014. No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. However, if code is released under GPL 'version 2 or later,' that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
62. ^[7]
63. ^[8]
64. ^'General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main'.
65. ^Free Software Foundation. 'A Quick Guide to GPLv3'. Licenses. Free Software Foundation.
66. ^Mozilla Foundation. 'MPL 2.0 FAQ'. Licenses. Mozilla Foundation.
67. ^'Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation'.
68. ^'Frequently Answered Questions'.
69. ^'OSI Board Meeting Minutes, Wednesday, March 4, 2009'.
70. ^Free Software Foundation. 'XFree86 1.1 License'. Licenses. Free Software Foundation.

Open Source Portal Software Comparison Calculator