Future research on FLOSS development

Crowston, Kevin

doi:10.5210/fm.v0i0.1465

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It covers a number of input related topics such as developer motivations and team formation, process topics such as the development process itself, and governance, as well as a few output related topics such as learning and community evolution. Krishnamurthy and Tripathi (2009), Carillo and Okoli (2008), Crowston andScozzi (2008), De Paoli et al (2008), Elliott and Scacchi (2008), Mateos-Garcia and Steinmueller (2008), West and Lakhani (2008), West and O'Mahony (2008), Benoit-Barne 2007, Comino et al (2007), Dueñas et al (2007), Görling (2007), Kidane and Gloor (2007), Mikkonen et al (2007), Muller-Prove (2007), O'Mahony (2007), O'Mahony and Ferraro (2007, Vaisman (2007), Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006), Dahlander and Wallin (2006), Grewal et al (2006), Hemetsberger and Reinhardt (2006), Roberts et al (2006), Valverde et al (2006), Voth and Lanir (2006), Yu et al (2006), Bitzer and Schröder (2005), Choi et al (2005), Gandel and Wheeler (2005), Gutsche (2005), Hemetsberger (2005), Iannacci andMitleton-Kelly (2005), Millar et al (2005), Lehmann (2004), O'Donnell (2004, Sc...…”

Section: Oss Intellectual Property Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RESEARCH AGENDA Articles that categorize OSR, create frameworks to organize research efforts, and/or propose research agendas/models to guide and shape future OSR. West and Lakhani (2008), Jin et al (2007), Scacchi (2007), von Krogh and von Hippel (2006), Niederman et al (2006a,b), Nelson et al (2006), Crowston (2005), Koch and Gonzalez-Barahona (2005), Krishnamurthy (2005), Lerner and Tirole (2005), Lin (2005), Rossi (2004), Ghosh (2003a), von Hippel andvon Krogh (2003), Fitzgerald and Feller (2002), Fitzgerald and Feller (2001), Lerner and Tirole (2001), Feller and Fitzgerald (2000). Masri and Podgurski (2008), Hoepman and Jacobs (2007), Nizovtsev andThursby (2007), Boulanger (2005), Ye et al (2005), Pashalidis and Fleury (2004), Hansen et al (2002), Payne (2002), Swift (2001).…”

Section: Oss Research Categorization /mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comprehensive Review and Synthesis of Open Source Research

Aksulu¹,

Wade²

2010

JAIS

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The open source movement has grown steadily and matured in recent years, and this growth has been mirrored by a rise in open source related research. The objective of this paper is to pause and reflect on the state of the field. We start by conducting a comprehensive literature review of open source research, and organize the resulting 618 peer-reviewed articles into a taxonomy. Elements of this taxonomy are defined and described. We then draw on a number of existing categorization schemes to develop a framework to situate open source research within a wider nomological network. Building on concepts from systems theory, we propose a holistic framework of open source research. This framework incorporates current research, as represented by the taxonomy, identifies gaps and areas of overlap, and charts a path for future work.

show abstract

Section: Oss Intellectual Property Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Oss Research Categorization /mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Review and Synthesis of Open Source Research

Aksulu¹,

Wade²

2010

JAIS

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Crowston (2005) referred to these as "shared understandings" as he discussed the next steps of the broad, global FOSS research agenda. Goldman and Gabriel [11] state: "... every open-source project has some sort of governance because decisions must be made all the time" and suggest that the institutional structures get more complicated when firms become involved.…”

Section: Institutions and Avoiding The Tragedy Of The Commonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tragedy of the FOSS commons? Investigating the institutional designs of free/libre and open source software projects

Schweik¹,

English²

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free/Libre and Open Source Software projects (FOSS) are a form of Internet-based commons. Since 1968, when Garrett Hardin published his famous article "Tragedy of the Commons" in the journal Science, there has been significant interest in understanding how to manage commons appropriately, particularly in environmental fields. An important distinction between natural resource commons and FOSS commons is that the "tragedy" to be avoided in natural resources is over-harvesting and the potential destruction of the resource. In FOSS commons the "tragedy" to be avoided is project abandonment and a "dead" project. Institutions -defined as informal norms, more formalized rules, and governance structures -are mechanisms that have been shown to help overcome tragedies in some environmental commons situations. The goal of this paper is to more formally describe the concept of FOSS institutions and to conduct a preliminary examination of FOSS projects in order to shed light into institutions, their composition and importance to the projects. We report findings from an initial set of interviews of FOSS developers and find that in commons settings that need to encourage contribution rather than control over-appropriation, the institutional designs appear to be extremely lean and as unobtrusive as possible. To the FOSS programmers we interviewed, institutional structure adds transaction costs and hinders collective action. This is markedly different from traditional environmental commons settings.

show abstract