The focus of this paper is to review what is known about free and open source software development (FOSSD) work practices, development processes, project and community dynamics, and other socio-technical relationships. It focuses on exploring how FOSS is developed and evolved based on an extensive review of a set of empirical studies of FOSSD projects that articulate different levels of analysis. These characterize what has been analyzed in FOSSD studies across levels that examine (i) why individuals participate; (ii) resources and capabilities supporting development activities; (iii) how cooperation, coordination, and control are realized in projects; (iv) alliance formation and inter-project social networking; (v) FOSS as a multi-project software ecosystem, and (vi) FOSS as a social movement. Next, there is a discussion of limitations and constraints in the FOSSD studies so far. Last, attention shifts to identifying emerging opportunities for future FOSSD studies that can give rise to the development of new software engineering tools or techniques, as well as to new empirical studies of software development.

the state of the literature. We develop a framework for organizing the literature based on the input-mediatoroutput-input (IMOI) model from the small groups literature. We present a quantitative summary of articles selected for the review and then discuss findings of this literature categorized into issues pertaining to inputs (e.g., member characteristics, technology use and project characteristics), processes (software development and social processes), emergent states (e.g., trust and task related states) and outputs (e.g. team performance, FLOSS implementation and project evolution). Based on this review, we suggest topics for future research, as well as identifying methodological and theoretical issues for future inquiry in this area, including issues relating to sampling and the need for more longitudinal studies.

An important and intriguing aspect of e-entrepreneurship is the formation of new ventures in the domain of open source software (OSS). Previous research on these ventures has primarily looked at the design of business models, yet has neglected other key questions relating to the management of these firms, despite clear indications that some existing insights on venture management cannot be applied to new ventures in OSS. The purpose of this paper is to explore how three key challenges of venture management -- the liabilities of newness and smallness of start-ups and market entry barriers -- affect new ventures in OSS. Based on empirical data from personal interviews and a large scale survey we find that many of the liabilities that are typically discussed in the entrepreneurship literature are much less of a challenge for new ventures in OSS. Our findings have interesting implications for the emerging theory on e-entrepreneurship, and for entrepreneurs considering to exploit business opportunities in OSS, and more generally business opportunities based on open innovations.

This paper uses discourse analysis to examine the free/libre and open source movements. It analyses how they fix elements within the order of discourse of computer code production. It attempts to uncover the key signifiers in their discourses and trace linkages between the sedimented discourses of wider society. Using discourse theory and critical discourse analysis, the theoretical foundations underpinning each of the movements are critically examined and the effect on the wider developer and Internet community is discussed. Additionally, this paper seeks to recommend discursive strategies that could be employed to avoid the threat of colonization by neoliberal discourse and the consequent challenge this has for the ideas of freedom, liberty and community within the developer communities' own discourses

Abstract: Commercial firms increasingly contribute to the development of open source software (OSS). However, a conflict often arises between the requirements of the General Public License to make “derived work ” available, and firms ’ interest to protect their intellectual property embodied in the code. If there are ways to mitigate or solve this conflict, the conditions under which OSS will be an appealing solution to firms become much more general. This paper is the first to provide a quantitative empirical study of this conflict and the ways firms deal with it. I present a study of embedded Linux, based on an online-survey that yielded 268 valid responses. It turns out that firms routinely use various means to protect their developments, while keeping the GPL. Still, they do reveal a considerable share of their code— on average, 49%. Heterogeneity between firms is analyzed using multivariate analysis. I show how the relative importance of various benefits and downsides of revealing determines a firm’s pattern of revealing. An analysis of reported reasons for revealing and of the type of code that is revealed provides further insights into these patterns. Putting the different dimensions of revealing behavior together, I find that consistent patterns of revealing can be identified for different types of firms.

Abstract not found

at Boston University, ETH Zürich,

1 Content 1. Kulwer Academic Publisher Editorial – An Update from OCP-IP ……3 2. ARM Column- Cortex-R4, A comparison with the ARM9E processor family

The link between firms engaging in open source software (OSS) development and the OSS community is established by individual developers. This linkage might entail a principalagent issue due to the developer’s double allegiance to firm and OSS community, and expose the firm to the risk of losing intellectual property. Using both interviews and a large-scale survey, I substantiate the importance of the developer’s role. However, neither interview data nor regression analysis show indications of commercially harmful revealing behavior induced by “Free Software ideology. ” Management, on the other hand, sometimes seems to be overly concerned about openness. I conclude that a more positive stance towards openness will allow firms to better share in the benefits of open innovation processes.

Abstract not found