The global economy’s digital infrastructure is based on free and open source software. To analyse how firms indirectly collaborate via employee contributions to developer-run projects, we propose a formal definition of ‘industrial public goods’ – inter-firm cooperation, volunteer and paid labour overlap, and participation inequality. We verify its empirical robustness by collecting networks of commits made by firm employees to active GitHub software repositories. Despite paid workers making more contributions, volunteers play a significant role. We find which firms contribute most, which projects benefit from firm investments, and identify distinct ‘contribution territories’ since the two central firms never co-contribute to top-20 repositories. We highlight the challenge posed by ‘Big Tech’ to the non-rival status of industrial public goods, thanks to cloud-based systems which resist sharing, and suggest there may be ‘contribution deserts’ neglected by large information technology firms, despite their importance for the open source ecosystem’s sustainability and diversity.
ÅgerfalkJFitzgeraldB (2008) Outsourcing to an unknown workforce: exploring opensourcing as a global sourcing strategy. MIS Quarterly32(2): 385–409.
2.
Akond RahmanAKrishnaRSobranA, et al. (2018) We don’t need another hero? The impact of ‘heroes’ on software development. In: ICSE-SEIP’18: proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: software engineering in practice, Gothenburg, 27 May–3 June, pp. 245–253. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3183519.3183549
3.
AlcarasG (2020) Des biens industriels publics. Genèse de l’insertion des logiciels libres dans la Silicon Valley. Sociologie du travail62(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.4000/sdt.33283
4.
AlexyOLeitnerM (2011) A fistful of dollars: are financial rewards a suitable management practice for distributed models of innovation?European Management Review8: 165–185.
5.
BenklerY (2013) Practical anarchism: peer mutualism, market power, and the fallible State. Politics & Society41: 213–251.
6.
BiddleCB (2019) Linux foundation is eating the world. Journal of Open Law, Technology & Society11(1): 57–73.
7.
BirkinbineB (2020) Incorporating the Digital Commons: Corporate Involvement in Free and Open Source Software. London: University of Westminster Press.
8.
BonaccorsiARossiC (2004) Altruistic individuals, selfish firms? The structure of motivation in open source software. First Monday9(1). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.433620
9.
BrocaS (2018) Du modèle du logiciel libre au modèle productif des communs. Les licences pair à pair contre le free software? (Working Paper 9, Projet EnCommuns). Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03407580/
10.
ButlerSGamalielssonJLundellB, et al. (2021) On company contributions to community open source software projects. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering47: 1381–1401.
11.
ChełkowskiTGloorPJemielniakD (2016) Inequalities in open source software development: analysis of contributor’s commits in Apache Software Foundation projects. PLoS ONE11(4): e0152976.
12.
ChopraSDexterS (2007) Decoding Liberation: The Promise of Free and Open Source Software. New York: Routledge.
13.
ClaesMMäntyläMKuutilaM, et al. (2018) Towards identifying paid open source developers – a case study with Mozilla developers. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on mining software repositories, Gothenburg, 28–29 May, pp. 437–441. New York: ACM. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02153v1
14.
ColemanBHillM (2004) How free became open and everything else under the sun: introduction. M/C Journal7(3). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2352
15.
DeyTMousaviSPonceE, et al. (2020) Detecting and characterizing bots that commit code. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03172
ErlenhovLDe Oliveira NetoFGScandariatoR, et al. (2019) Current and future bots in software development. In: IEEE/ACM 1st international workshop on Bots in software engineering (BotSE), Montreal, QC, Canada, 28 May. New York: IEEE. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/BotSE.2019.00009
18.
FoleyDK (2013) Rethinking financial capitalism and the ‘information’ economy. Review of Radical Political Economics45(3): 257–268.
19.
GaspariniMClarisóRBrambillaM, et al. (2020) Participation inequality and the 90-9-1 principle in open source. In: OpenSym 2020: proceedings of the 16th international symposium on open collaboration, Virtual conference Spain, 25–27 August, pp. 1–7. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3412569.3412582
20.
GoeminneMMensT (2011) Evidence for the Pareto principle in open source software activity. In: 5th International workshop on software quality and maintainability, Oldenburg, 1–4 March, pp. 74–82. New York: IEEE.
21.
HaruvyEPrasadASethiSP (2003) Harvesting altruism in open-source software development. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications118(2): 381–416.
22.
HillWHollanJWroblewskiD, et al. (1992) Edit wear and read wear. In: CHI ’92: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Monterey, CA, 3–7 May, pp. 3–9. New York: ACM.
23.
JullienNZimmermannJ-B (2013) Le logiciel libre: un renouveau du modèle industriel coopératif de l’informatique. In: Paloque-BergesCMasuttiC (eds) Histoires et cultures du Libre. Des logiciels partagés aux licences échangées. Paris: Framasoft, pp. 135–164.
24.
KalliamvakouEGousiosGBlincoeK, et al. (2014) The promises and perils of mining GitHub. In: Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories, Hyderabad, India, 31 May–1 June, pp. 92–101. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597074
25.
KrishnamurthyS (2006) On the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of open source developers. Knowledge, Technology & Policy18(4): 17–39.
26.
KrishnamurthySOuSTripathiA (2014) Acceptance of monetary rewards in open source software development. Research Policy43(4): 632–644.
27.
KukG (2006) Strategic interaction and knowledge sharing in the KDE developer mailing list. Management Science52(7): 1031–1042.
28.
LeeGColeR (2003) From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation. Organization Science14: 633–649.
29.
LimaARossiLMusolesiM (2014) Coding together at scale: GitHub as a collaborative social network. In: Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, Ann Arbor, MI, 1–4 June. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.2535
30.
LundAZukerfeldM (2020) Corporate Capitalism's Use of Openness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
MansellRBerdouE (2010) Political economy, the internet and FL/OSS development. In: HunsingerJAllenMKlastrupL (eds) International Handbook of Internet Research. Berlin: Springer, pp. 341–362.
32.
Nguyen-DucACruzesDTerjeS, et al. (2019) Do software firms collaborate or compete? A model of coopetition in community-initiated OSS projects. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal13(1): 37–62.
O’NeilMMuselliLRaissiM, et al. (2020) ‘Open Source has won and lost the war’: legitimising commercial-communal hybridization in a FOSS project. New Media & Society23: 1157–1180.
35.
O’NeilMBrocaS (2021) Peer production and social change. In: O’NeilMPentzoldCToupinS (eds) The Handbook of Peer Production, pp. 285–298. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
36.
O’NeilMCaiXMuselliL, et al. (2021) The coproduction of open source software by volunteers and big tech firms. Digital Commons Policy Council / News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra. Available at: https://doi.org/10.25916/r8vg-hd09
37.
RiehleDRiemerPKolassaC, et al. (2014) Paid vs. volunteer work in Open Source. In: 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, HI, 6–9 January, pp. 3286–3295. New York: IEEE. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.407
38.
RikapCLundvallB-A (2020) Big Tech, knowledge predation and the implications for development. Innovation and Development. Epub ahead of print 7 December. DOI: 10.1080/2157930X.2020.1855825.
39.
RomerPGrilichesZ (1993) Implementing a national technology strategy with self-organizing investment boards. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics1993(2): 345–399.
TeixeiraJRoblesGGonzález-BarahonaJM (2015) Lessons learned from applying social network analysis on an industrial Free/Libre/Open Source Software ecosystem. Journal of Internet Services and Applications6: 14.
43.
TerranovaT (2000) Free labor: producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text18(2): 33–58.
44.
YamashitaKMcIntoshSKameiY, et al. (2015) Revisiting the applicability of the Pareto Principle to core development teams in open source software projects. IWPSE 2015: proceedings of the 14th international workshop on principles of software evolution, Bergamo, 30 August, pp. 46–55. New York: ACM. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/2804360.2804366
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
