The phenomenon of Open Source Software (OSS) has recently attracted the attention of many scholars and professionals. The literature on OSS innovation has shown how the creative process is powered by relational and cultural richness. This is one of the constitutional elements of the institutional context of the OS (Open Source) community, which was formed in response to the need to manage the dense and extensive network of interdependencies deriving from the sharing of property rights. The freedom to make changes and improvements to the source code, and the possibility of sharing it within the community (together with the opportunity of each individual to interact with the community to report bugs, improvements, and ideas), has provoked two consequences. First, the development of an alternative model, where more players work together to produce a common good, contributing to its continual improvement, and to expanding the variety of available and future potential resources. Second, a model of selection of variety, which is based on collaboration/contribution among equals (peer-review), in order to find the solution that best meets the needs of the community and, at the same time, leaves room for the development of new varieties.
Looking for the missing link between creativity and governance in open source communities: Some implications from GNOME and KDE case study
Ganzaroli A.;
2012
Abstract
The phenomenon of Open Source Software (OSS) has recently attracted the attention of many scholars and professionals. The literature on OSS innovation has shown how the creative process is powered by relational and cultural richness. This is one of the constitutional elements of the institutional context of the OS (Open Source) community, which was formed in response to the need to manage the dense and extensive network of interdependencies deriving from the sharing of property rights. The freedom to make changes and improvements to the source code, and the possibility of sharing it within the community (together with the opportunity of each individual to interact with the community to report bugs, improvements, and ideas), has provoked two consequences. First, the development of an alternative model, where more players work together to produce a common good, contributing to its continual improvement, and to expanding the variety of available and future potential resources. Second, a model of selection of variety, which is based on collaboration/contribution among equals (peer-review), in order to find the solution that best meets the needs of the community and, at the same time, leaves room for the development of new varieties.
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
