Quality Software Costs Money - Heartbleed Was Free: How to generate funding for FOSS
Open accessAbstract
The world runs on free and open-source software, FOSS for short, and to some degree it has predictably infiltrated just about any software-based product anywhere in the world.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In response to the costly OpenSSL bug, solutions emphasising different sustainabilities were proposed.
“As a response to the costly bug, solutions emphasising different sustainabilities were proposed.”
From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Kamp, 2014
The HOW TO FUND FOSS section (page unavailable) describes several funding approaches, and WHY FOSS NEEDS MONEY links sustained developer support to software quality after Heartbleed. The paper therefore supports the claim that responses to the bug were proposed, but it does not distinguish solutions emphasising different kinds of sustainability. (LLM, conf=0.79)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Yadron, D. 2014. After Heartbleed bug, a race to plug Internet hole. Wall Street Journal (April 9);
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The sustainability of open source commons
Curto-Millet, D., & Corsín Jiménez, A. (2023) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2022.2046516 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Agile Processes, in Software Engineering, and Extreme Programming
Sharp, H., & Hall, T. (2016) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33515-5 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kamp, P.-H.
- Corresponding author
- Kamp, Poul-Henning
- Venue
- Queue
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 10-14
- ISSN
- 1542-7730 (ISSN-L)
- 1542-7749
- OpenAlex
- W3138794612
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Queue (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- Heartbleed, free and open source software, software vulnerabilities, software development costs, FOSS adoption
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
