First Monday – Tragedy of the FOSS commons?

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_2/schweik/

First Monday can be a frustrating read some times, but I find almost every issue has at least one real gem like this.

Charles Schweik and Robert English have published this important look at the role of “institutions” in the sustainability of FOSS projects. It’s critical to note their notion of “institution” which in this context refers to the rules, norms and governance structures of a project. Kind of unsurprisingly, at least to me, they find that they fewer the hurdles to participation, the more contributions you get, but that projects do evolve additional “institutions” as they grow, though not as many as you might suspect.

Another small piece of the study is the report on the size (in developers) of projects hosted on sourceforge (cf. Table 1) whose data presumably came from the FLOSSmole project. Of the 93,702 total projects (as of April 2005) only 224 had greater than 25 developers, and only 1800 or so had more than 10. I say “only” which sounds dismissive but it’s not meant that way. Just that many of the smaller ones might leave you a bit risk exposed if you were to adopt them without one’s own development capabilities already identified. – SWL

Advertisements
First Monday – Tragedy of the FOSS commons?

3 thoughts on “First Monday – Tragedy of the FOSS commons?

  1. […] 似乎在开源软件最初的目标上出现了一些倒退,至少这是我们根据在线月刊《First Moday》这个月的判断得到的结论。在一篇文章“FOSS公用品的悲剧?”(译注:“公用品悲剧”一词意思是凡属于最多数人的公共事物常常是最少受人照顾的事物,人们关怀着自己的所有,而忽视公共的事物;FOSS:Free/Libre and Open Source Software的缩写)中,悲剧是一个非产品或者是维持性的问题,“制度设计--标准、正式规则和管理结构--经常帮助克服公用品悲剧”。Scott Leslie称这篇文章是一颗“明珠”,但我没这样乐观。另外,文章作者判断,“过去我们所熟悉的组织模式(基于付费劳动),正在迅速成为开源软件开发社区的一个部分”。两篇文章都指出了,公司企业在开源软件发展中所扮演的角色。对我而言,这似乎在暗示公司企业似乎在利用开发者们,因而,改变了FLOSS的自由开放文化。但我很困惑,是否反过来也不正确呢--开发者们正在利用公司和企业。Teemu Mikkonen, Tere Vaden, and Niklas Vainio, First Monday February 15, 2007 [链接] [评论] […]

    Like

  2. […] 似乎在开源软件最初的目标上出现了一些倒退,至少这是我们根据在线月刊《First Moday》这个月的判断得到的结论。在一篇文章“FOSS公用品的悲剧?”(译注:“公用品悲剧”一词意思是凡属于最多数人的公共事物常常是最少受人照顾的事物,人们关怀着自己的所有,而忽视公共的事物;FOSS:Free/Libre and Open Source Software的缩写)中,悲剧是一个非产品或者是维持性的问题,“制度设计--标准、正式规则和管理结构--经常帮助克服公用品悲剧”。Scott Leslie称 这篇文章是一颗“明珠”,但我没这样乐观。另外,文章作者判断,“过去我们所熟悉的组织模式(基于付费劳动),正在迅速成为开源软件开发社区的一个部 分”。两篇文章都指出了,公司企业在开源软件发展中所扮演的角色。对我而言,这似乎在暗示公司企业似乎在利用开发者们,因而,改变了FLOSS的自由开放 文化。但我很困惑,是否反过来也不正确呢--开发者们正在利用公司和企业。Teemu Mikkonen, Tere Vaden, and Niklas Vainio, First Monday February 15, 2007 [链接] [评论] […]

    Like

  3. […] 似乎在开源软件最初的目标上出现了一些倒退,至少这是我们根据在线月刊《First Moday》这个月的判断得到的结论。在一篇文章“FOSS公用品的悲剧?”(译注:“公用品悲剧”一词意思是凡属于最多数人的公共事物常常是最少受人照顾的事物,人们关怀着自己的所有,而忽视公共的事物;FOSS:Free/Libre and Open Source Software的缩写)中,悲剧是一个非产品或者是维持性的问题,“制度设计--标准、正式规则和管理结构--经常帮助克服公用品悲剧”。Scott Leslie称这篇文章是一颗“明珠”,但我没这样乐观。另外,文章作者判断,“过去我们所熟悉的组织模式(基于付费劳动),正在迅速成为开源软件开发社区的一个部分”。两篇文章都指出了,公司企业在开源软件发展中所扮演的角色。对我而言,这似乎在暗示公司企业似乎在利用开发者们,因而,改变了FLOSS的自由开放文化。但我很困惑,是否反过来也不正确呢--开发者们正在利用公司和企业。Teemu Mikkonen, Tere Vaden, and Niklas Vainio, First Monday February 15, 2007 [链接] [评论] […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s