Towards a Theory for Understanding the Open Source Phenomenon

1. Towards a Theory for Understanding the Open Source Phenomenon Kasper Edwards Technical University of Denmark Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management

2. Agenda • My perspective • Introducing open source software • Open source software as economic goods • A community-based institutional framework • A capitalistic, institutional framework

3. 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

4. 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

5. The open source software development cycle • Maintainer releases software and source code • User downloads software and source code • User identifies problems or needed features • User implements corrections • Contributor returns corrections to the Maintainer for inclusion • Corrections are discussed • Maintainer includes changes and release a new version

6. 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

7. Economic theory of goods • There is a long tradition that economists try to understand goods • How benefits can be appropriated

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Summing up the community based institutional framework • Possible to collaborate with minimal communication • Development is a learning process • Situated learning describes the learning process

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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