Advertisement

Open Source Communities: The Sociotechnical Institutionalization of Collective Invention

  • Jan-Felix Schrape
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Sociology book series (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.

Keywords

Innovation Open-source Peer-production Collective invention Software industry Professionalization 

References

  1. 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.
  2. Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2016). Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. European Management Journal, 34(2), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, R. C. (1983). Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 4(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alphabet Inc. (2016). Form 10-K 2016. https://abc.xyz/investor/. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  6. 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
  7. Ante, S. (2014). Red Hat plays hardball on OpenStack software. The Wall Street Journal. http://on.wsj.com/14qBpus. Accessed 13 May 2014.
  8. 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
  9. Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and “The Nature of the Firm”. Yale Law Journal, 112, 369–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benkler, Y. (2004). Intellectual property: Commons-based strategies and the problems of patents. Science, 305(5687), 1110–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Benkler, Y. (2013). Practical anarchism, peer mutualism, market power, and the fallible state. Politics & Society, 41(2), 213–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Blau, P. M., & Scott, R. W. (1962). Formal organizations. A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Brooks, F. (1975). The mythical man-month. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Campbell-Kelly, M. (2003). From airline reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog. A history of the software industry. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Coleman, G. (2013). Coding freedom. The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. Corbet, J., Kroah-Hartman, G., & McPherson, A. (2009–2015). Linux kernel development report. San Francisco: The Linux Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Corbet, J., & Kroah-Hartman, G. (2016). Linux kernel development report. San Francisco: The Linux Foundation.Google Scholar
  31. Corbet, J., & Kroah-Hartman, G. (2017). Linux kernel development report. San Francisco: The Linux Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. (2008). How do firms make use of open source communities? Long Range Planning, 41(6), 629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dickel, S., & Schrape, J.-F. (2017). The logic of digital utopianism. Nano Ethics, 11(1), 47–58.Google Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. Dolata, U. (2013). The transformative capacity of new technologies. A theory of sociotechnical change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Dolata, U., & Schrape, J.-F. (2016). Masses, crowds, communities, movements: Collective action in the internet age. Social Movement Studies, 15(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Driver, M. (2014). Within the enterprise, open source must coexist in a hybrid IT portfolio. Gartner Inc. Research Report. Stamford: Gartner Inc.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The transformation of open source software. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Gates, B. (1976). An open letter to hobbyists. Computer Notes, 1(9), 3.Google Scholar
  43. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gelsi, S. (1999, 10 December). VA Linux rockets 698%. CBS Marketwatch. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-linux-rockets-698/. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  45. GNU Project (2017). GCC Steering Committee. https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  46. Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M., Izquierdo-Cortazar, D., & Maffulli, S. (2013). Understanding how companies interact with free software communities. IEEE Software, 30(5), 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greenstein, S., & Nagle, F. (2014). Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache. Research Policy, 43(4), 623–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Hayes, F. (2001). The Microsoft way. Computerworld. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2590879/enterprise-applications/the-microsoft-way.html. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Herstatt, C., & Ehls, D. (2015). Open source innovation: Phenomenon, participant behaviour, business implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. Jewkes, J., Sawyers, D., & Stillerman, R. (1969). The sources of invention (Vol. 2). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. KDE Project. (2017). Project management. https://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/management.php. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  56. 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.
  57. 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
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lakhani, K. R., & von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works. Research Policy, 32(6), 923–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lerner, J. (2012). The architecture of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  64. Lerner, J., & Schankerman, M. (2010). The comingled code. Open source and economic development. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2005). The scope of open source licensing. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 21(1), 20–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lessig, L. (1999). Open code and open societies. Chicago Kent Law Review, 74, 1405–1420.Google Scholar
  68. Levy, S. (1984). Hackers. Heroes of the computer revolution. Garden City: Anchor Press.Google Scholar
  69. 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.
  70. Lowood, H. (2009). Videogames in computer space: The complex history of Pong. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 31(3), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Martin, J. (1991). Rapid application development. Indianapolis: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  72. Mason, P. (2015). PostCapitalism: A guide to our future. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  73. Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. McGaw, J. A. (1987). Most wonderful machine: Mechanization and social change in Berkshire paper making 1801–1885. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Menell, P. S. (2002). Envisioning copyright law’s digital future. New York Law School Review, 46, 63–199.Google Scholar
  77. Meyer, P. B. (2003). Episodes of collective invention. BLS Working Paper 368. Washington: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Google Scholar
  78. Microsoft Inc. (2017). 2016 Annual Report. http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/. 21 January 2018.
  79. Miller, P., & Nelson, L. E. (2016). Open source powers enterprise digital transformation. Cambridge: Forrester Inc. (Research Report).Google Scholar
  80. Moody, G. (2002). Rebel code. The inside story of Linux and the open source revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  81. Mozilla Foundation. (2016). Mozilla Wiki WeeklyUpdates. https://wiki.mozilla.org/WeeklyUpdates. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  82. Netscape Communications. (1998). Netscape announces Mozilla.org. Press Release from 23 February 1998.Google Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. O’Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons. How community managed software projects protect their work. Research Policy, 32(7), 1179–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.
  87. Osterloh, M., & Rota, S. (2007). Open source software development: Just another case of collective invention? Research Policy, 36(2), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Perlroth, N. (2014, April 18). Heartbleed highlights a contradiction in the web. The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/1hb6uBd. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  89. Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory & Society, 20, 725–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pomerantz, J., & Peek, R. (2016). Fifty shades of open. First Monday. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i5.6360. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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
  93. Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  94. Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  95. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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
  97. Scott, W. R. (2004). Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Scranton, P. (1997). Endless novelty: Specialty production and American industrialization 1865–1925. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  99. 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.
  100. Snow, S. (2014). How Matt’s machine works. Fast Company. http://www.fastcompany.com/3035463/how-matts-machine-works. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  101. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Spinellis, D., & Giannikas, V. (2012). Organizational adoption of open source software. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), 666–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Spreeuwenberg, K., & Poell, T. (2012). Android and the political economy of the mobile internet. First Monday.  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i7.4050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stallman, R. (1983). New UNIX implementation. http://bit.ly/1DSDoXW. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  105. Stallman, R. (2002). Free software, free society. Boston: GNU Press.Google Scholar
  106. 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
  107. 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.
  108. 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
  109. 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.
  110. 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.
  111. Suddaby, R. (2013). Book review: The Janus face of commercial open source software communities. Organization Studies, 34(7), 1009–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sydow, J., Schüssler, E., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2016). Managing inter-organizational relations: Debates and cases. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics. How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
  114. Torvalds, L. (1998). LINUX manifesto. Interview. Boot Magazine, 1998(7–8), 32–37.Google Scholar
  115. 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.
  116. Ubuntu Project. (2017). Governance. https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/governance. Accessed 21 January 2018.
  117. UNCTAD—United Nations Conference of Trade and Development. (2012). Information economy report 2012. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  118. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Weber, S. (2000). The political economy of open source. BRIE Working Paper 140. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  120. 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
  121. 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.
  122. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. West, J., & Bogers, M. (2017). Open innovation: Current status and research opportunities. Innovation, 19(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social Sciences (SOWI VI)University of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations