Governance of open source software: state of the art
- PDF / 157,072 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 18 Downloads / 209 Views
Governance of open source software: state of the art Paul B. de Laat
Published online: 9 June 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract In this overview of governance mechanisms developed within open source software (OSS) circles, three types of governance are studied: ‘spontaneous’ governance, internal governance, and governance towards outside parties. Moreover, two main ways in which lessons from OSS can be applied elsewhere are explored: peer production of products other than software, and embedding ‘peerproduced’ products and peer processes into existing institutions (‘coupling’). Keywords Commons Configurations Governance Institutionalization Open source software Peer production 1 Introduction The preceding contributions by Jørgensen, Hertel, O’Mahony, and Markus about governance of open source software (OSS) reveal an amazing repertoire of governance mechanisms. In this final overview I will weave several strands in their arguments together by distinguishing three types of OSS governance (‘spontaneous’ governance, internal governance, and governance towards outside parties). These roughly correspond to historical phases of both OSS development itself and studies about OSS. At the end, I venture some remarks about the ‘lessons’ of OSS governance to be applied elsewhere: peer production may apply to other kinds of products, and become embedded within existing institutions (‘coupling’).
P. B. de Laat (&) Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen, Oude Boteringestraat 52, 9712 GL Groningen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]
123
166
P.B. de Laat
2 Point of departure: governance of the source code commons OSS ‘hackers’ conceive of themselves as a movement to correct the failure of existing institutions (both industry and academia) to produce software adequately. By putting the source code of their programs on websites and constantly exchanging comments, patches, and new features, these hackers created a new institutional mode: peer production of software. As such, they exemplify a true ‘community of practice’, a globally distributed and virtual one at that. As for the movement’s ideology, two main currents can be distinguished. The more radical camp considers closed code software production as harmful, and espouses the view that software should be a public good, both publicly available and modifiable. To that end, they created a new regulatory framework, close to the public domain: the GPL that allows free use, modification, and (re)distribution of source code. However, one strict rule applies: any (re)distribution should carry the same license terms. Consequently, GPL-ed code will remain in the source code commons, in all its modifications and recombinations. These self-perpetuating regulations (sometimes referred to as ‘viral’) serve to protect the commons from private appropriation. To a large extent, the temptation to ‘defect’ is eliminated. As a corollary, the commons’ resources remain up-to-date (thereby preventing the potential ‘tragedy’ of non-maintenance of th
Data Loading...
