Advertisement

Protocols of Control: Collaboration in Free and Open Source Software

  • Reinhard Anton Handler
Chapter
Part of the Dynamics of Virtual Work book series (DVW)

Abstract

Handler shows in his chapter the importance of control in producing free and open source software (f/oss). He describes how control mechanism are not exclusive to industrial production. Rather they are central for processes which are based on decentralisation and flexibility. By looking at the central role of control in f/oss, it shows that the commons and the commodities model are both subject of a computational logic that ultimately rests on control. Handler argues that while this computational logic has specific features and repercussions, it can operate differently depending on the social and cultural contexts. Computational control, embedded in the collaborative ethic of f/oss, not only allows exit points of this decentralised control but it also starts to change how software programmers collaborate.

References

  1. Ågerfalk, P., & Fitzgerald, B. (2008). Outsourcing to an unknown workforce: Exploring opensourcing as a global sourcing strategy. MIS Quarterly, 6(1), 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agre, P. E. (1994). Surveillance and capture: Two models of privacy. The Information Society, 10(2), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrejevic, M. (2007). ISpy: Surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  4. Barbrook, R. (2000). Cyber-Communism: How the Americans are superseding capitalism in cyberspace. Science as Culture, 9(1), 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bauwens, M. (2013). Thesis on digital labor in an emerging P2P economy. In T. Scholz (Ed.), Digital labor: The Internet as playground and factory (pp. 207–210). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berdou, E. (2011). Organization in open source communities: At the crossroads of the gift and market economy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bergquist, M., & Ljungberg, J. (2001). The power of gifts: Organizing social relationships in open source communities. Information Systems Journal, 11(4), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berry, D. M. (2015). Critical theory and the digital. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  11. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, È. (2007). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Crowston, K., & Howison, J. (2006). Hierarchy and centralization in free and open source software team communications. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 18(4), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dabbish, L., Stuart, C., Tsay, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2012). Social coding in GitHub: Transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1277–1286). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. De Angelis, M. (2017). Omnia sunt communia: On the commons and the transformation to postcapitalism. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.Google Scholar
  16. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dyer-Whiteford, N. (2007). Commonism. Turbulence, 1. Retrieved from http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-1/commonism/
  18. Fisher, E. (2010). Media and new capitalism in the digital age the spirit of networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fogel, K. (2013). Producing open source software: How to run a successful free software project. O’Reilly Media. Retrieved from http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.pdf
  20. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  21. Franklin, S. (2015). Control: Digitality as cultural logic. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Free Software Foundation. (2017, March 20). Selling free software. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  23. Fuller, M. (Ed.). (2017). How to be a geek: Essays on the culture of software. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. Galloway, A. R. (2006). Protocol: How control exists after decentralization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hecker, F. (1999). Setting up shop: The business of open-source software. IEEE Software, 16(1), 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). The cultural industries. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  27. Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2011). Creative labour: Media work in three cultural industries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hoover, D. H., & Oshineye, A. (2010). Apprenticeship patterns: Guidance for the aspiring software craftsman. Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  29. Kniberg, H. (2008, March 31). Version control for multiple agile teams. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from https://www.infoq.com/articles/agile-version-control
  30. Lovink, G., & Rossiter, N. (Eds.). (2007). MyCreativity reader: A critique of creative industries. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
  31. Löwgren, J., & Reimer, B. (2013). Collaborative media: Production, consumption, and design interventions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  33. Mancuso, S. (2015). The software craftsman: Professionalism, pragmatism, pride. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command: Extending the language of new media. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  35. Marlow, J., Dabbish, L., & Herbsleb, J. (2013). Impression formation in online peer production: Activity traces and personal profiles in GitHub. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 117–128). New York: ACM Press. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2441776.2441792
  36. McBreen, P. (2002). Software craftsmanship: The new imperative. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  37. Meng, B., & Wu, F. (2013). COMMONS/COMMODITY: Peer production caught in the web of the commercial market. Information, Communication & Society, 16(1), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nyman, L., & Mikkonen, T. (2011). To fork or not to fork: Fork motivations in sourceforge projects. In S. A. Hissam, B. Russo, M. G. de Mendonça Neto, & F. Kon (Eds.), Open source systems: Grounding research (Vol. 365, pp. 259–268). Berlin: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-24418-6 Google Scholar
  39. O’Mahony, S. (2005). Nonprofit foundations and their role in community-firm software collaboration. In J. Feller (Ed.), Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 393–414). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. O’Neil, M. (2009). Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and authority in online tribes. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Okoli, C., & Nguyen, J. (2016). Business models for free and open source software: Insights from a Delphi study. Retrieved March 14, 2017, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2568185
  42. Open Source Initiative. (2006). Frequently asked questions. How is ‘open source’ related to ‘free software’? Retrieved December 1, 2016, from https://web.archive.org/web/20060423094434/http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html
  43. Perens, B. (1999). The open source definition. In C. DiBona, S. Ockman, & M. Stone (Eds.), Open sources: Voices from the open source revolution (pp. 171–188). Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  44. Perens, B. (2005). The emerging economic paradigm of Open Source. First Monday, Special issue 2. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1470/1385
  45. Raymond, E. S. (2000). The Jargon File (version 4.4.7). Retrieved from http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/index.html
  46. Rigi, J. (2013). Peer production and Marxian communism: Contours of a new emerging mode of production. Capital & Class, 37(3), 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shaw, A., & Hill, B. M. (2014). Laboratories of Oligarchy? How the iron law extends to peer production. Journal of Communication, 64(2), 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Söderberg, J. (2012). Hacking capitalism: The free and open source software (foss) movement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Spehr, C. (2007). Free cooperation. In G. Lovink & T. Scholz (Eds.), The art of free cooperation (pp. 65–180). Brooklyn: Autonomedia.Google Scholar
  50. Stallman, R. (2016, November 18). Why open source misses the point of free software. Retrieved 3 April 2017, from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
  51. Storey, M.-A., Singer, L., Cleary, B., Figueira Filho, F., & Zagalsky, A. (2014). The (R)evolution of social media in software engineering. In Proceedings of Future of Software Engineering (pp. 100–116). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  52. Tsay, J., Dabbish, L., & Herbsleb, J. (2014). Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 356–366). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  53. Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  54. Velkova, J. (2016). Free software beyond radical politics: Negotiations of creative and craft autonomy in digital visual media production. Media and Communication, 4(4), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wheeler, D. A. (2015, July 18). Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS, FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the Numbers! Retrieved February 4, 2017, from https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reinhard Anton Handler
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations