Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open Source Communities: The Sociotechnical Institutionalization of Collective Invention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collectivity and Power on the Internet

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

Abstract

Open source development has become an integral part of the software industry and a key component of the innovation strategies of all major IT providers. Against this backdrop, this article seeks to develop a systematic overview of open source communities and their socio-economic contexts. It begins with a reconstruction of the genesis of open source software projects and their changing relationships to established IT companies. This is followed by the identification of four ideal-type variants of current open source projects that differ significantly in their modes of coordination and the degree of corporate involvement. Further, the article examines why open source projects have mainly lost their subversive potential while, in contrast to former cases of collective invention, remaining viable beyond the emergence of predominant solutions and their commercial exploitation. In an industry that is characterized by very short innovation cycles, open source projects have proven to be important incubators for new product lines and branch-defining infrastructures. They do not compete against classical forms of production but instead complement and expand these.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Under the label “inner sourcing” (O’Reilly 2000), an increasing number of firms are adapting the development methods of OSS projects for their internal coordination structures; however, agile methods had been in use in the IT industry as early as the 1990s (Martin 1991).

  2. 2.

    For instance, a significant part of Mozilla’s income arrives in the form of royalties from the Firefox search box, in other words, contracts with major search engine providers. The main sponsors of the Apache Software Foundation include Google, Microsoft and Facebook as platinum members with donations of $100,000+ per year.

  3. 3.

    As Weinberg (2015b) notes, the mobile operation system Android therefore “provides an apt analogy. While the platform derives from hundreds of open source components […], the majority of the applications distributed through Google Play are closed and proprietary.”

  4. 4.

    Since 1998, former Netscape manager Mitchell Baker holds one of these positions and is also executive chairwoman of the Mozilla Cooperation and the Foundation, which has over 1000 employees. Although voluntary participants are welcomed, between September 2015 and September 2016, only 17 volunteers but 228 new hires were introduced in the project’s weekly updates (Mozilla 2016). The Ubuntu project, too, relies on the work of the employees of Shuttleworth’s for-profit company Canonical.

  5. 5.

    Worldwide spending for software and IT services 2005: US$885 billion; 2010: US$1,092 billion; 2015: US$1,532 billion (UNCTAD 2012; Accelerance 2017).

  6. 6.

    Furthermore, as vendor lock-in is still attractive to vendors, many IT companies are practicing one or another kind of “openwashing” for marketing purposes (Pomerantz and Peek 2016): “Openwashing describes situations where the term ‘open’ as a (generally positive) adjective actually obscures the fact that content, processes, platforms or institutions are in reality not ‘open’ or at least not in the ways others think they should be” (Smith and Seward 2017).

References

  • Accelerance Inc. (2017). Global IT market size: Facts and figures. http://www.accelerance.com/research/global-it-market-size-facts-and-figures (5/2017). Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2016). Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. European Management Journal, 34(2), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D. W. E., & Potts, J. (2016). How innovation commons contribute to discovering and developing new technologies. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 1035–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, R. C. (1983). Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 4(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alphabet Inc. (2016). Form 10-K 2016. https://abc.xyz/investor/. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Ames, M., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Lindtner, Mellis, D., & Rosner, D. (2014). Making cultures: Empowerment, participation, and democracy–or not? Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1087–1092).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ante, S. (2014). Red Hat plays hardball on OpenStack software. The Wall Street Journal. http://on.wsj.com/14qBpus. Accessed 13 May 2014.

  • Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.): The rate and direction of inventive activity. economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and “The Nature of the Firm”. Yale Law Journal, 112, 369–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2004). Intellectual property: Commons-based strategies and the problems of patents. Science, 305(5687), 1110–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2013). Practical anarchism, peer mutualism, market power, and the fallible state. Politics & Society, 41(2), 213–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2015). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. In S. Coleman & D. Freelon (Eds.), Handbook of digital politics (pp. 169–198). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Walker, S. (2014). Organization in the crowd: Peer production in large-scale networked protests. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 232–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergquist, M., Ljungberg, J., & Rolandsson, B. (2012). Justifying the value of open source. ECIS Proceedings. http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2012/122/. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Bezroukov, N. (1999a). A second look at the cathedral and the bazaar. First Monday. http://firstmonday.org/article/view/708/618. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Bezroukov N. (1999b). Open source software development as a special type of academic research. First Monday. http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/696/606. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Blau, P. M., & Scott, R. W. (1962). Formal organizations. A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boes, A., Kämpf, T., Langes, B., Lühr, T., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Cloud & crowd: New challenges for labour in the digital society. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 15(1), 132–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. (1975). The mythical man-month. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulajewski, M. (2011). The peer production illusion, Part I. MrTeaCup. http://www.mrteacup.org/post/peer-production-illusion-part-1.html. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Burton, G. (2002). A personal recollection: IBM”s unbundling of software and services. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 24(3), 64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byfield, B. (2013). What makes for a community distribution? Linux Magazine. http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/What-makes-for-a-community-distribution. Accessed 13 May 2017.

  • Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell-Kelly, M. (2003). From airline reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog. A history of the software industry. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, G. (2013). Coding freedom. The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, C. (2000). Open source projects manage themselves? Dream on. IBM/Lotus Developers Network. http://www.chc-3.com/pub/manage_themselves.htm. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Corbet, J., Kroah-Hartman, G., & McPherson, A. (2009–2015). Linux kernel development report. San Francisco: The Linux Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbet, J., & Kroah-Hartman, G. (2016). Linux kernel development report. San Francisco: The Linux Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbet, J., & Kroah-Hartman, G. (2017). Linux kernel development report. San Francisco: The Linux Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. (2008). How do firms make use of open source communities? Long Range Planning, 41(6), 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickel, S., & Schrape, J.-F. (2017). The logic of digital utopianism. Nano Ethics, 11(1), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobusch, L., Dobusch, L., Müller-Seiz, G. (2017). Closing for the benefit of openness? The case of Wikimedia’s open strategy process. Organization Studies. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0170840617736930.

  • Dolata, U. (2013). The transformative capacity of new technologies. A theory of sociotechnical change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U. (2017). Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft. Market concentration—competition—innovation strategies. Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies 2017–01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U., & Schrape, J.-F. (2016). Masses, crowds, communities, movements: Collective action in the internet age. Social Movement Studies, 15(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, M. (2014). Within the enterprise, open source must coexist in a hybrid IT portfolio. Gartner Inc. Research Report. Stamford: Gartner Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, F. M., McKie, J. W., & Mancke, R. B. (1983). IBM and the US data processing industry. An economic history. Santa Barbara: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The transformation of open source software. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Free Software Foundation. (1989). GNU General Public License (GPL) Version 1.0. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.en.html. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Gates, B. (1976). An open letter to hobbyists. Computer Notes, 1(9), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelsi, S. (1999, 10 December). VA Linux rockets 698%. CBS Marketwatch. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-linux-rockets-698/. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • GNU Project (2017). GCC Steering Committee. https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M., Izquierdo-Cortazar, D., & Maffulli, S. (2013). Understanding how companies interact with free software communities. IEEE Software, 30(5), 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, S., & Nagle, F. (2014). Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache. Research Policy, 43(4), 623–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulley, N., & Lakhani, K. (2010). The determinants of individual performance and collective value in private-collective software innovation. Harvard BS TOMU Working Paper 10/065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, F. (2001). The Microsoft way. Computerworld. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2590879/enterprise-applications/the-microsoft-way.html. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Henkel, J., Schöberl, S., & Alexy, O. (2014). The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Research Policy, 43(5), 879–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herstatt, C., & Ehls, D. (2015). Open source innovation: Phenomenon, participant behaviour, business implications. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtgrewe, U., & Werle, R. (2001). De-commodifying software? Open source software between business strategy and social movement. Science Studies, 14(2), 43–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, T. (2010). Enforcement of the GNU GPL in Germany and Europe. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 1(1), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jewkes, J., Sawyers, D., & Stillerman, R. (1969). The sources of invention (Vol. 2). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • KDE Project. (2017). Project management. https://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/management.php. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Kernel.Org. (2016). How to get your change into the Linux kernel. https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Kolassa, C., Riehle, D., Riemer, P., & Schmidt, M. (2014). Paid vs. volunteer work in open source. In Proceedings 47th Hawaii Int. Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3286–3295).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). Production and governance in hackerspaces: A manifestation of commons-based peer production in the physical realm? International Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(5), 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiss, D., Finn, M., & Turner, F. (2011). The limits of peer production: Some reminders from Max Weber for the network society. New Media & Society, 13(2), 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani, K. R., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works. Research Policy, 32(6), 923–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamoreaux, N. R., & Sokoloff, K. L. (2000). The geography of invention in the American glass industry 1870–1925. Journal of Economic History, 60(3), 700–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., & Sparks, J. (1998). The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (2012). The architecture of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Schankerman, M. (2010). The comingled code. Open source and economic development. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 197–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2005). The scope of open source licensing. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 21(1), 20–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). Open code and open societies. Chicago Kent Law Review, 74, 1405–1420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. (1984). Hackers. Heroes of the computer revolution. Garden City: Anchor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, P. (2014). Why there will never be another Red Hat: The economics of open source. Techcrunch. http://tcrn.ch/1bs5yMQ. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Lowood, H. (2009). Videogames in computer space: The complex history of Pong. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 31(3), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (1991). Rapid application development. Indianapolis: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P. (2015). PostCapitalism: A guide to our future. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCray, P. W. (2013). The visioneers. How a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGaw, J. A. (1987). Most wonderful machine: Mechanization and social change in Berkshire paper making 1801–1885. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menell, P. S. (2002). Envisioning copyright law’s digital future. New York Law School Review, 46, 63–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, P. B. (2003). Episodes of collective invention. BLS Working Paper 368. Washington: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft Inc. (2017). 2016 Annual Report. http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/. 21 January 2018.

  • Miller, P., & Nelson, L. E. (2016). Open source powers enterprise digital transformation. Cambridge: Forrester Inc. (Research Report).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, G. (2002). Rebel code. The inside story of Linux and the open source revolution. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozilla Foundation. (2016). Mozilla Wiki WeeklyUpdates. https://wiki.mozilla.org/WeeklyUpdates. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Netscape Communications. (1998). Netscape announces Mozilla.org. Press Release from 23 February 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuvolari, A. (2004). Collective invention during the British industrial revolution: The case of the Cornish pumping engine. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(3), 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons. How community managed software projects protect their work. Research Policy, 32(7), 1179–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T. (2000). Re: Open Source and OpenGL. Ask Tim Forum. http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2000/opengl_1200.html. 21 January 2018.

  • Osterloh, M., & Rota, S. (2007). Open source software development: Just another case of collective invention? Research Policy, 36(2), 157–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlroth, N. (2014, April 18). Heartbleed highlights a contradiction in the web. The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/1hb6uBd. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory & Society, 20, 725–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J., & Peek, R. (2016). Fifty shades of open. First Monday. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i5.6360. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Powell, W. W., & Giannella, E. (2010). Collective invention and inventor networks. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 575–605). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, E. S. (1998, 22 November). Goodbye, “free software”; Hello, “open source”. Eric’s Home Page. ftp://ftp.lab.unb.br/pub/computing/museum/esr/open-source.html. Accessed 21 January 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrape, J.-F. (2017). Reciprocal irritations: Social media, mass media and the public sphere. In R. Paul, M. Mölders, A. Bora, M. Huber, & P. Münte (Eds.), Society, regulation and governance: New modes of shaping social change? (pp. 138–149). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2004). Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scranton, P. (1997). Endless novelty: Specialty production and American industrialization 1865–1925. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L., & Seward, R. (2017). Openness as social praxis. First Monday. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7073/6087. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Snow, S. (2014). How Matt’s machine works. Fast Company. http://www.fastcompany.com/3035463/how-matts-machine-works. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Spencer, J. W. (2003). Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system. Evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinellis, D., & Giannikas, V. (2012). Organizational adoption of open source software. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), 666–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreeuwenberg, K., & Poell, T. (2012). Android and the political economy of the mobile internet. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i7.4050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stallman, R. (1983). New UNIX implementation. http://bit.ly/1DSDoXW. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Stallman, R. (2002). Free software, free society. Boston: GNU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamelos, I. (2014). Management and coordination of free/open source projects. In G. Ruhe & C. Wohlin (Eds.), Software project management in a changing world (pp. 321–341). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg J. (2014). Massive internet security vulnerability. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/04/10/massive-internet-security-vulnerability-you-are-at-risk-what-you-need-to-do/. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Steinmacher, I., Conte, T., Redmiles, D., & Gerosa, M. (2015). Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1379–1392).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiller, A. (2011). The open source trials: Hanging in the legal balance of copyright and copyleft. Vision Mobile Blog. http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2011/03/the-open-source-trials-hanging-in-the-legal-balance-of-copyright-and-copyleft/. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Stokel-Walker, C. (2014). The internet is being protected by two guys named Steve. Buzzfeed. https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/the-internet-is-being-protected-by-two-guys-named-st?utm_term=.nqdX2Jd0K#.rfBqKaY5V. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Suddaby, R. (2013). Book review: The Janus face of commercial open source software communities. Organization Studies, 34(7), 1009–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schüssler, E., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2016). Managing inter-organizational relations: Debates and cases. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics. How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torvalds, L. (1998). LINUX manifesto. Interview. Boot Magazine, 1998(7–8), 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torvalds, L. (2002). Re: [PATCH] remove bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree. Linux Kernel Mailinglist 20 April 2002. http://lwn.net/2002/0425/a/ideology-sucks.php3. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • Ubuntu Project. (2017). Governance. https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/governance. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • UNCTAD—United Nations Conference of Trade and Development. (2012). Information economy report 2012. New York/Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R., Jr. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, S. (2000). The political economy of open source. BRIE Working Paper 140. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, B. (2015a). The internet of things and open source. In I. Podnar Žarko, K. Pripužić, M. Serrano (Eds.), Interoperability and open-source solutions for the internet of things (pp. 1–5). Lecture notes in computer science No. 9001. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, B. (2015b). Open source and the internet of things: A reality check. http://blog.blackducksoftware.com/open-source-and-the-internet-of-things-a-reality-check. Accessed 21 January 2018.

  • West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation. A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Bogers, M. (2017). Open innovation: Current status and research opportunities. Innovation, 19(1), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Sciences (SOWI VI), University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Jan-Felix Schrape

Authors
  1. Jan-Felix Schrape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Felix Schrape .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schrape, JF. (2018). Open Source Communities: The Sociotechnical Institutionalization of Collective Invention. In: Collectivity and Power on the Internet. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78414-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78414-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78413-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78414-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation