Master's thesis

Repository for my MSc thesis

Build instructions

sudo apt install texlive-full

latexmk

Timing

week 3 plan review

week 4 plan review

week 5 plan review

week 6 supervisor meeting, plan review

week 7 plan review

week 8 continue Introduction

week 9 continue introduction, ask hints from supervisor

week 10 finish introduction

week 11 find literature

week 12 find literature

week 13 (25.3 - 31.3) gather literature

week 14 (1.4 - 7.4) gather literature

week 15 (8.4 - 14.4) gather literature

week 16 (15.4 - 21.4) gather literature

week 17 (22.4 - 28.4) gather literature *

week 18 (29.4 - 5.5) write Results, Discussion and Conclusions

week 19 (6.5 - 12.5) first draft, wait for comments

week 20 (13.5 - 19.5) send final draft, wait for final comments

week 21 (20.5 - 26.5) read final comments, student sends final version, supervisor requests review

week 22 (27.5 - 2.3) wait for review

week 23 (3.6 - 9.6) wait for review

week 24: mon 10.6: supervisor sends to grappa first thing on monday wed 12.6: student submits thesis to E-thesis

If 10.6 grappa deadline is missed the next grappa deadline is in the beginning of september.

General

Pomodoros

• stage 1 of search process
• stage 2 of search process
• stage 3 of search process
• results
• discussion
• conclusions

Break activity

• tekken
• meditation

Notes

ad hoc notes place reserved here

Diary

Diary

week 18

fri: 1 pomodoro.

week 17

fri: 1 pomodoro. refactoring rqs and adjusting the search process diagram.

mon: 2 pomodoro.

week 16

fri: 1 pomodoro. started gathering literature to google sheets.

thu: 1 pomodoro

wed: 1 pomodoro. quality and evidence criteria section removed.

tue: 0 pomodoro.

mon: 1 pomodoro great success. after first search process stage inclusion and exclusion criteria are formed.

week 15

fri: 3 pomodoro. good progress.

thu: 1 pomodoro.

wed: 1 pomodoro. making some good progress.

tue: 4 pomodori. idk if i can do this consistently.

mon: 3 pomodoros. nice.

week 14

fri: not much done. sent an email to supervisor regarding the sms but ill continue working on the slr style.

thu: i'm not completely sure if i should write a systematic mapping study or a systematic literature review. ask about this from supervisor.

wed: 2 pomodoros. finished paragraphizing kuutila et al. 2020. tomorrow should happen something

tue: like 0.3 pomodoro or something like that. this is going reaaally slow.

week 13

thu: 3 pomodoros. it's hard. i know what to do but this thing still takes a lot of time. might not be able to finish the thesis this semester.

wed: 3 pomodoros. i should start reading kuutila et al. 2020 and the paragraphization. long task but what are you gonna do. read the abstract. tomorrow maybe introduction if im strong enough 😂 (cope). actually managed to install chrome .deb version today and managed to collapse diary on readme and add detailed dates to timing (although im prolly not gonna finish this thesis this spring).

tue: if god wills it i won't have to include wikipedia nor choosealicense.com to the literature if they have duplicates from the replicable license lists. 0 pomodoro since i've been experiencing dizziness. created good pomodoros though for tomorrow.

mon: 2 pomodoros. met the mlr master. i might have to do some drastic changes to the rhytm of the paper which means more required time but hopefully this'll go fine. tomorrow'll be an interesting day.

week 12

thu: i think i did almost 3 pomodoros. the progress pretty much stopped when i realized i can't replicate the search string part from nurmivaara due to google search limitations. ill have to contact the master of mlr, mika mäntylä. one more week dedicated to the search process nahhhhh. ill have to adjust that.

wed: 1st pomodoro felt a bit hard in the beginning but now i have the start of my data extraction form yayyyy. for rq1 i should maybe give two numbers: one for the actual amount of pcls existing and the second for the number of remarkably different choices for pcls. 2 pomodori. apparently its fine and a default that only the year of citation is clickable. whatever then switching away from the citeh convention.

tue: replaced cites with citehs, citeps with citephs and made crossreferences fully clickable texts instead of just the numbers. 2 pomodori. the real science part begins. i can feel it.

mon: 0 cigarette. made citations more easily clickable. should improve validity. finished chapter 2.1. soon begins my literature gathering. 2 pomodori.

week 11

fri: 1 cigarette. i smell like death. figure 2.1 finished yesterday. idk what to do with the license notes and license exceptions. 2 pomodori. maybe ill just mention the notes and exceptions outside the scope but important never the less. 10 pages done out of 30.

thu: had an episode yesterday. tired. 0 pomodori today. i smoke 2 cigarettes and drink coffee. i want to perish.

wed: 0 pomodoro. new dish washer leaks water and i cry. nothing done.

tue: 1 pomodoro. chapter 2 is pretty much just copy paste from nurmivaara so that the process is standardized.

mon: linux kernel is licensed under the Linux Syscall Note. This essentially means that you can distribute the kernel with proprietary programs as long as you don't tamper the kernel itself. broo gpl3 or even gplv2 would be great on their own. always distribute in aplv3 cuz it has extra protection in server use. hosting gpl licensed code on the proprietary github pages is ok since github pages doesn't modify the gpl licensed code. 1 pomodoro.

week 10

fri: 2 pomodori. managed to finish introduction. so glad now ill get to read some licenses in a systematic way. luckily i have 3 whole weeks to do that. 7 pages in. hopefully the rest 23 pages come out as easily or more easily than the introuction came to be in 8 weeks.

thu: 1 pomodoro. ohhh boy im sure i can begin methods only next week.

wed: babysitting time.

tue: interesting comment from stackexchange:

But for server side code, it is very rare that copies of that code are given out. The GPL requirements do not trigger on ordinary server side use. The AGPL license may then be a better choice because the AGPL already triggers when users interact with the modified software over a network, not just when the users receive a copy of the software. til isc license which is deprecated already it seems and classpath exceptions and lgpl. even with classpath exception github recognizes the license. there is no need for algpl since usage over network and usage as linked library are different things. gpl + classpath doesn't allow reverse engineering whereas lgpl does allow that.i should be able to answer to all of the questions asked in opensource.stackexchange.com. mit licensed library usage doesn't need the license attached to the using project. not much progress on the thesis. 2 pomodori.

mon: this week surely ill finish introduction. first figure yay! a semi-long way to go for completing introduction though. maybe on wed ill have this thing completed. 3 pomodori today.

week 9

fri: high school presentation. had to help pitkänen with the laptop and phone. no advancements.

thu: had to plan next day high school presentation. no advancements.

wed: move day of my partner's sister. no advancements.

tue: first pomodoro down and two sections written already!!! im a beast 666. eh two pomodori only today but still some good progress. according to suvi i need to be doing the review itself during the writing process of 2. methods so maybe that's ahead of me already after im done writing the introduction.

mon: this week i should finish the introduction. wild thought but maybe i can do this. 3 pomodori. i think i did well today. almost 4 pages out of 30 done.

week 8

fri: the plan to get out of bed immediately does not work if one is sleepy. go earlier to sleep and only practice mindful activities while relaxing. from nurmivaara's slr it seems that you need to define an abbrevation only once in the thesis (even in abstract).

thu: the whole day was pretty cucked from the get go since i overslept. from now on i should just get out of bed the second my smooth brain spawns into this existence in the bed.

wed: started reading about how docker licenses their products. it's crazyyyy. apparentl docker desktop is the that has SLA and the only one that has proprietary support for windows and mac, well mac has colima, but for windows this is the only way. moved smaller tasks back here cuz i couldn't be asked to switch between joplin and vscode. 3 pomodoros today. 2 pages out of 30 done lets go babyy.

tue: checking plagiarism against nurmivaara's thesis with some open source software would be a good idea since i have borrowed many of the structures of sentence regarding the slr process from them. i should also check this with my supervisor.

mon: moved smaller tasks to joplin from here. keeping this only for diary type logging. feels good to start a new week. i think i did two pomodoros. could have done three but im still happy about the progress. got a second slr to take some example from. also reached out to simo kähönen for a copy of their slr thesis, because they have the third thesis out of three theses in helda that are tagged with slr. 2 pages in and rising yayy. ill have to adjust the research questions during the conduction of the slr itself. i hope this is normal.

week 7

fri fix latex, find another slr study: fixed latex, read wikipedia articles on cla, easycla, project harmony and got an idea to sign clas with gpg keys

thu finish 1.0: finished 1.0. one pomodoro.

wed: did nothing. recovering from yesterday.

tue finish 1.0: did nothing. had a depression attack. read one pomodoro worth about gplv3 changes compared to gplv2.

mon finish 1.0 & title1 1.1,-2,-3 paragraphs: rms responded to me saying they'll take a look at the sspl if it actually would be considered free. titled all paragaphs. did not finish 1.0. will do that tomorrow.

week 6

fri title 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 paragraphs: did nothing cuz i had to look after the baby at home the whole day.

thu title methods paragraphs: managed to find out a better citation for the freedom definition

wed -: took a break from mental health reasons. finished the sudoku and learned about hidden & naked singles, pairs, triples and quads. im a sudoku god.

tue continue writing 1.0: basically just tried to figure out what's the deal with sspl and is it any good.

mon continue writing 1.0: the morning started pretty good in the 3rd floor with a pomodoro. we'll see how long this drive lasts.

week 5

fri try to get motivated: no motivation. added thesis diary and study plan to readme. tried to solve sudoku all day. this is how far i got.

thu write 1.0: didn't write jack

wed finish 1.0: continued writing 1.0 but very slowly. idk if i can even do this.

tue write 1.1, finish 1.0: organize chrome tabs

mon write 1.0, send email to supervisor: started writing 1.0. sent email to supervisor.

week 4

fri 26.1 write introduction 1.0, send email to supervisor: didn't write introduction nor send email to supervisor. had to take baby to nutritional therapist.

thu 25.1 take notes from 3 other slr studies' introductions, write introduction: didn't write introduction. tooks notes from 2 other finnish slr studies introduction 1.0s. will have to find another longer slr on software engineering since the third i found on ieee is too short.

wed 24.1 write introduction: didn't manage to write any introduction. instead found some articles and forum discussions about the rhel gpl violation incident.

tue 23.1 think about research questions: I started taking a model from Nurmivaara's systematic literature review on green software. I now have my first set of 4 research questions.

mon 22.1 think about research questions

week 3

fri 19.1 read about slr

thu 18.1 fix latex

mon 22.1 read about slr: I read the SLR slideshow through. The title is now multivocal slr on software licenses in software engineering. The research questions are not clear yet. I am scared again.

Thesis design

1 Introduction 6 pages

• setting
• definition
• problem
• easier sub-problem
• thesis' contribution

1.1 Research goal, questions, and contributions

• primary object of this research (rqs)
• 1.2 will examine terms
• viewpoints

1.2 Thesis structure

• thesis structure

1.3 Background and terminology of PCLs

• state of current terminology
• terms of other interest areas of the thesis
• why the scope is so narrow
• acknowledge some other essential but non-focus
• state of terminology standardization
• figure to demonstrate terms
• free vs open
• define PCLs in se
• acknowledge the topic is complex

2 Methods 8 pages

• aim of the chapter
• explain slr
• study follows kitchenham 2007
• how the review process came to be
• reliability & validity

2.1 Research questions

• purpose of rqs
• aim of individual rqs

2.2 Search strategy

• where was search process conducted in (inclusion/exclusion in appendix a)
• data extraction process

2.2.1 Search method

• more on where was search process conducted in

2.2.2 Search scope and terms

• how were search terms determined (end condition)
• search string
• how many results
• finalized search string

2.3 Search process

• Study selection divided into multiple stages (figure)
• first stage titles, abstracts and keywords
• second stage inclusion exclusion criteria (quality assesment incl/excl, manual excl in appendix b)
• third stage manual review (final list of licenses in appendix c (maybe in hosted javascript githubpages as well))

2.4 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

• inclusion criterias (second phase from github /licenses api)
• exclusion criterias
• comments on applying

2.5 Quality and evidence criteria

• quality criteria was also taken into consideration
• quality criteria
• quality assesment and figure

2.6 Data collection and data analysis

• what was done to answer rq (table data extraction form)
• aim of scope and evidence levels (alves et al)
• categorization of results
• next chapter presents outcomes

3 Results 8 pages

• information about chapter
• how many licenses and why
• statistical overview with figures (mapping study)
• how many licenses during each stage (figure)
• basic statistic on final licenses (figure)
• essential statistics (figure)

3.1 RQ1

• figures and study identifier tables

3.2 RQ2

• figures and study identifier tables

3.3 RQ3

• figures and study identifier tables

4 Discussion 7 pages

• indications
• follow-up observation
• observation 1
• observation 2
• sum-up from those two

4.1 Implications for research

• how to improve scientific scene 1
• how to improve scientific scene 2
• how to improve scientific scene 3

4.2 Implications for software engineering professionals

• how to improve professional scene 1
• how to improve professional scene 2
• how to improve professional scene 3
• overall

4.3 Limitations and threats to validity

• major limitation
• possible threats to validity

4.3.1 Limitations of license selection for review

• efforts to inclusion
• as with all slr all licenses cannot be reviewed manually
• license selection was done in sufficient manner

4.3.2 Limitations in data extraction

• importance of data extraction
• lack of measurements and tooling

5 Conclusions 1 pages

• primary objective of this study
• conclusions from each rq

5.1 Future research

• adopting a clear baseline
• Docker CLA, SSPL
• make cla easier maybe with gpg
• LICENSE highlighting.js
• what kind of efforts and why
• what this thesis has provided
• how has each license fared in the court in real life?