Towards a Theory for Towards a Theory for Understanding the Open Source Understanding the Open Source

PhenomenonPhenomenon

Kasper Edwards

Technical University of Denmark

Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management

Agenda

My perspective

Introducing open source software

Open source software as economic goods

A community-based institutional framework

A capitalistic, institutional framework

My perspective

Background

Engineer

Tainted with economics

Economics of technology The technology must be taken into account

Data Hours of interviews with open source developers

Personal interest / involvement

Introducing open source software

What is open source software? Software like any other software

Access to the source code, which may be modified

Create derived works

Create and distribute copies

How is open source software developed? Organised in individual projects

The central figure is the maintainer

Communications are done mostly using web-based media

Mailing lists are the central means of communication

The open source software development cycle1. Maintainer releases software and source code

2. User downloads software and source code

3. User identifies problems or needed features

4. User implements corrections

5. Contributor returns corrections to the Maintainer for inclusion

6. Corrections are discussed

7. Maintainer includes changes and release a new version

The problem of understanding Open Source Software

Observations Open source software is being developed and exchanged

Some open source products have market dominance

Private individuals contribute to the development

Commercial enterprises contribute to the development

Open source software development is not without cost Time and/or money

People and especially enterprises must make a living

Economic theory of goods

There is a long tradition that economists try to understand goods

How benefits can be appropriated

Rivalrous NonRivalrous

Excludable Private good(Loaf of bread)

Club good(Cable TV)

Nonexcludable Commons(Fish in the ocean)

Pure public good(The ozone layer)

Open source software as a good

Technical properties A digital being - unlimited copies at insignificant cost

Instantaneous mass-distribution

» Open source software is non-rival in consumption

License properties Free redistribution

The source code must be available

» Open source software is non-excludable

A pure public good

Theoretical consequences of being pure public good

Under-provision What is underprovided has not been developed

Massive free riding Free-riding in open source: Development not returned to the

project

There is a penalty from not returning developments to the maintainer

The question Why is open source software being developed?

Different approaches to the question

Why is open source software is being developed? A research object

Altruism

It is intrinsically rewarding

To gain reputation

To build a CV

To develop open source software instead of buying software

An analytical problem

Two groups of actors Unpaid voluntary developers

Commercial enterprises

Could we understand both within the same theory? I believe not

Prima facie it must be assumed that they have different incentives

They might even adhere to different inner logic

Two different institutional frameworks The community-based institutional framework

The capitalistic, institutional framework

The community based institutional framework

Observation Many are developing open source software

OSS development is time consuming

There is no monetary reward

Properties of the open source organisation Very loosely coupled network

Limited communications bandwidth

Characterising members of epistemic communities A shared set of normative and principled beliefs

Shared causal beliefs

Shared notions of validity

A common policy enterprise

OSS projects as an epistemic community Shared normative and principled beliefs

Strong belief in empowerment of users

A counter culture

Shared causal beliefs

Contributors have programming experience (or are gaining)

Provision of a common understanding of how to solve a problem

Shared notions of validity Important when choosing between solutions

Provision of a common understanding of why a solution was chosen

Two criteria: 1) Performance, and 2) Beauty

Common policy enterprise Freedom of choice

Freedom to expand and change software to fit personal needs

Theoretical consequences of epistemic communities

Possible to collaborate with minimal communication

A shared mindset

The code say more than a thousand words

Little or no need for co-ordination

Implicit understanding of the direction of the project

Problems of epistemic communities A static analysis to a dynamic phenomenon

Epistemic communities does not explain entry into projects

Legitimate peripheral participation

Becoming part of a project is a learning process

Every project has its own idiosyncrasies

Learning is situated Knowledge cannot be de-coupled from situation

Learning can only be done through participation

Learners are trying to become insiders

Consequences of legitimate peripheral participation Learners are not able to participate in core activities

Learners can contribute to peripheral activities

Learners must be allowed to participate

Learners must be allowed to be part of the community practice

By participating learners become part of the community

Summing up the community based institutional framework

Possible to collaborate with minimal communication

Development is a learning process

Situated learning describes the learning process

The Capitalistic Institutional Framework

Observations Commercial enterprises contribute to open source development

A market divided:

» The Windows platform

» The other platforms

Perspective Understanding at the level of the industry

Understanding motivation

Applications matter to the user – platforms are just an enabler

Theory Computing platforms and applications are compatibility regimes

Network effects

Increasing returns on several levels

» Application developers - Retail outlet - Users

Competing technologies and lock-in

Theoretical Consequences The ‘others’ can only survive as niche players as the number of

applications diminish

To compete they need to establish a credible alternative

Open Source Software is one such alternative Difficult to hijack development

Combined effort makes for fast development

Commercial enterprises have incentives Create an alternative platform and attract applications

Develop applications to attract users/costumers

Influence on platform development

Freedom to develop new hardware for the platform

Concluding the capitalistic institutional framework It makes sense to make a perspective of competing technologies

OSS as a platform provides a singular opportunity to create one credible alternative to the Windows platform

Conclusion

Are we on the way towards a theory? Yes, but only parts of the phenomenon

Different institutional frameworks seem appropriate

Community-based institutional framework The code says more than a thousand words

Describes and helps to understand the process

Capitalistic institutional framework Platform competition show an incentive to contribute to

development

An open source platform might be the credible alternative