Jan Ljungberg "Open Source movements as a model for organizing" >>> ownership of the project >>> contradiction?? According to Raymond there are basically three ways to acquire ownership of an open source project: to found it, to have it handed over the former owner, or to volunteer to take over a dying project where the former owner has lost his interest. >>>> ownership Owner as a leader of the development> "practicing a benevolent dictatorship" The owner attracts contributors and becomes more of a coordinator or project leader. ownership is important >> owner could be a person or a group >> owner is recognized by the community >>> right to redistribute modified versions >>> owner distributes versions of the software. "The owner used to be leader of the development, practicing a benevolent dictatorship (though there are a few other models discussed below). As the owner attracts contributors, i.e. people that discover the software and want add to its development, he/she becomes more of a coordinator or project leader." ***CLASH clash of open-source cultrue and the commercial terms of public offerings -Red Hat was being filed for public stock offering. "An interesting issue is what will happen to the open source communities, and their values when their work ends up at the stock exchange." Red Hat : commercial business >>> grew around Linux : package versions of free software to be more user friendly and easy to install, together with manuals, education and support. The development of Linux coincided with a more public use of Internet and the explosion of the web in the 1990s. Apache web server project. coordination through email, mailing lists, forums, slashdot web portal focused on linux Linux >> writing a Unix system for the intel x86 project intiated by a student of computer science in Helsinki. Started to wriete the kernel in 1991 Gathered supporters by asking questions and sharing information in a message board. kernel writen from scratch *Gift economies and gift cultures to give, to receive, to return "In a gift culture social status is determined no by what you own or control but by what you give away. The giving of gifts is therefor a way to power and control." gift giving gifts of information and advice giving away source code, information, or knowledge the gift is still in possession of the giver the gift is "an infinite resource" software made available as a public good >> for free to anyone projects need people to volunteer :: developers, users projects become communities reputation among peers is the meausure of success >> reputation is built, gained by giving away, sharing, advicing *Scientific knowledge sharing :: academic research academic community give away knowledge an information in return for status and reputation. building an academic career. System of peer review in which contributions are evaluated by peers. Evaluation of work, research, performance by peers and experts in the field. Sharing knowledge, becoming visible in the the academic community Writing and publishing papers "By doing something useful that others can benefit from, and share with them, they five credit by referring." OS communities have similar norms. Early academic computer science communities. Pieces of software are shared, riviewed bu peers, and you get credit for your contribution in the OS community ***Software process testing debugging improving >>> benevolent dictator "One of the most common models in coordinating open- source projects is that several contributors work under a single benevolent dictator who owns the project. Typically this organization evolves when the founder attracts contributors. The benevolent-dictator has the right to take decisions (e.g. of what to include for redistribution) and has an obligation to credit contributors fairly. By contributing to the project you earn part of its reputation in return. When a project grows it is common that it will be split in subsystems with subsystem-owners, i.e. introducing two kinds of contributors: ordinary contributors and co-developers." Willing to contribute >> status in the community Owner of the project decides development, design, planning. Sometimes in cooperation with co-deveopers and with suggestions from ordinary contributors. >>> benevolent dictator has the ultimate power >>> takes final decisions of what to change coordinator of a bazaar-like project "The stories of the open source projects are full of descriptions of the importance of the founders as entrepreneurs, as dedicated persons, as technical innovators, and good designers. " "Quality assurance seems to be at the hart of the bazaar mode. An army of testers, debuggers, and programmers contribute to the development. The leader and his co- developers review the contributions and choose the ones that hold the best quality." alternatives to one single dictator: - rotating dictatoriship - voting committee According to Raymond [27] one cannot start from scratch to have a successful bazaar mode project. One can test, debug and improve, but hardly originate in bazaar mode. All successful bazaar projects have been based on already available software. >>> best for improving systems that all ready are working. skilled volunteers, working for free, form a community with shared values. participatory user driving design :: communities of free software :: at the beginning :: users and developers are sometimes technicians, the same kind of people >>> later on communities diversify web technology facilitates feedback processes :: email, fora, servers, repositories >>> the Bazaar : mixture of hierarchy and market :: hybrid model There is often a strict hierarchy with a team or a benevolent dictator at the top, eventually co-developers next to the top, and then the community of contributors. It is also a market in the sense that the best contributions win, and as an individual you get credit and reputation by contributing. The bazaar is certainly a network of people using information technology to interact and to coordinate. Most of all it seems to be a mixture of several forms. It has a goal and a hierarchical structure, at the same time it is loosely coupled in the form of a community regulated by norms rather than rules. networked way of working, collaborating, cooperating. >>>$$$ Companies make money out of open-source software in at least three ways: 1. on distributing the open-source software ::: Red Hat Software, Caldera 2. by adding value to the open-source software by additional proprietary products >> Hybrid Model : Cygnus 3. and by relating to open-source software in different ways, such as bundling it with own products [24]. **conclusion characteristics of the bazaar model for developing software bazaar as a mixture of different organizational forms share code and knowledge could be viewed as a gift economy and scientific culture of sharing and at the same time as a market instead of teamwork, bazaar is based on community work trust regulates relationships network of individuals has generated new business models and at the same time has anti-commercial ideological values is the open source business model applicable to other areas? to other companies? will influence knowledge organizations in terms of organizing, customer relationships, business models. most important influences from open source to learn from and to study further are: • as a way of knowledge sharing; • as a way of coordinating development projects; • as a customer relationship model; • as an organizational model; • as a business model.