License Choice and the Changing Structures of Work in Organization Owned Open Source Projects: [Best Paper Nominee]

ABSTRACT

Digitally enabled transformations have allowed organizations and individuals to adopt open source as a viable mode of software development. In fact, organizations are increasingly moving away from traditional licenses in favor of open source licenses. However, extant literature reports conflicting findings regarding the impact of different open source licenses on the success of the project. Through this research, we attempt to reconcile the conflicting findings in literature by providing a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms through which the type of license influences the success of the project. Using propensity score matching and ordinary least squares regression analysis on a sample of 2110 organization owned open source projects, we compare the structures of work across the two main types of licenses and study its relation to the success of the project. The results of our analysis indicate that different motivational mechanisms are at play under different licenses, which in turn has an influence on the optimal structures of work for a particular license. From these results we conclude that the success of the project depends on how well the structures of work are aligned to the motivational requirements created by the license. The findings provide significant insights for open source researchers and organizations as to how they can model the structures of work to facilitate the success of open source projects.

References

1. Coverity Report. Coverity Scan: 2013 Open Source Report {Internet}. 2013. Available from: http://softwareintegrity.coverity.com/rs/coverity/images/2013-Coverity-Scan-Report.pdf
2. Lohr S. Some I.B.M. tools to be put in public domain. New York Times (November 5) {Internet}. 2001; Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/05/technology/05OPEN.html?pagewanted=all
3. Wagstrom PA. Vertical interaction in open software engineering communities. Carnegie Mellon University; 2009.
4. Google. Open source projects released by Google {Internet}. 2017. Available from: https://developers.google.com/open-source/projects
5. Crowston K, Wei K, Howison J, Wiggins A. Free/Libre open-source software development. ACM Comput Surv {Internet}. 2012;44(2):1--35. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2089125.2089127
6. Singh PV, Phelps C. Networks, Social Influence, and the Choice Among Competing Innovations?: Insights from Open Source Software Licenses Networks, Social Influence, and the Choice Among Competing Innovations?: Insights from Open Source Software Licenses. Inf Syst Res. 2013;24(August 2014):539--60.
7. Fershtman C, Gandal N. Open source software: Motivation and restrictive licensing. Int Econ Econ Policy. 2007;4(2):209--25.
8. Stewart KJ, Ammeter AP, Maruping LM. Impacts of license choice and organizational sponsorship on user interest and development activity in open source software projects. Inf Syst Res. 2006;17(2):126--44.
9. Sen R, Subramaniam C, Nelson ML. Determinants of the Choice of Open Source Software License. J Manag Inf Syst {Internet}. 2008;25(3):207--40. Available from:
10. Lerner J, Tirole J. The scope of open source licensing. J Law, Econ Organ. 2005;21(1):20--56.
11. Colazo JA, Fang Y, Neufeld D. Development Success in Open Source Software Projects: Exploring the Impact of Copylefted Licenses. In: AMCIS 2005 Proceedings {Internet}. 2005. Available from: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2005/432
12. Scotchmer S. Openness, open source, and the veil of ignorance. Am Econ Rev. 2010;100(2):165--71.
13. Stewart KJ, Ammeter AP, Maruping LM. A Preliminary Analysis of the Influences of Licensing and Organizational Sponsorship on Success in Open Source Projects. In: 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2005.
14. Stallman R. The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement. In: Open Sources Voices from the Open Source Revolution {Internet}. 1999. p. 272. Available from: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html
15. Lerner J, Tirole J. Some Simple Economics of Open Source. J Ind Econ {Internet}. 2003;50(2):197--234. Available from:
16. Colazo J a, Fang Y. Following the Sun: Temporal Dispersion and Performance in Open Source Software Project Teams. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2010;11(11):684--707.
17. Comino S, Manenti FM, Parisi ML. From planning to mature: On the success of open source projects. Res Policy. 2007;36(10):1575--86.
18. Bonaccorsi A, Rossi C. Licensing schemes in the production and distribution of Open Source software. An empirical investigation. :1--32. Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=432641 or
19. Howison J, Crowston K. Collaboration Through Open Superposition: A Theory Of The Open Source Way. MIS Q. 2014;38(1):29--50.
20. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determinaton Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(February):68--78.
21. Weiss HM, Cropanzo R. Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work. Res Organ Behav. 1996;18:1--74.
22. Ke W, Zhang P. The effects of extrinsic motivations and satisfaction in open source software development. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2010;11(12):784--808.
23. Kalliamvakou E, Gousios G, Singer L, Blincoe K, German DM, Damian D. The promises and perils of mining GitHub. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 2014. p. 92--101.
24. Grigorik I. The GitHub Archive {Internet}. 2012. Available from: https://www.githubarchive.org/
25. Google. Table details: 2014. {Internet}. 2017. Available from: https://bigquery.cloud.google.com/table/githubarchive:year.2014?pli=1&tab=details
26. Medappa PK, Srivastava SC. Does the Task Structure of Open Source Projects Matter? Superposition and Value Creation. In: Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems. Dublin; 2016. p. 1--10.
27. GitHub. About Stars. 2017; Available from: https://help.github.com/articles/about-stars/
28. Crowston K, Howison J, Annabi H. Information systems success in free and open source software development: Theory and measures. Softw Process Improv Pract. 2006;11(2):123--48.
29. Jarczyk O, Gruszka B, Jaroszewicz S, Bukowski L. GitHub Projects. Quality Analysis of Open-Source Software. In: SocInfo 2014: The 6th International Conference on Social Informatics. 2014. p. 80--94.
30. Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J. Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub. 36th Int Conf Softw Eng. 2014;356--66.
31. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41--55.
32. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching. Discuss Pap Ser. 2005;(1588).
33. Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd P. Matching As An Economic Evaluation Estimator. Rev Econ Stud {Internet}. 1998;65(2):261--94. Available from: http://restud.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/2/261.short
34. Hayes AF, Cai L. Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression?: An introduction and software implementation. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(4):709--22.
35. Bonaccorsi A, Giannangeli S, Rossi C, Rossi C. Entry Strategies Under Competing Standards?: Hybrid Business Models in the Open Source Software Industry. Manage Sci. 2006;52(7):1085--1098.
36. August T, Shin H, Tunca TI. Licensing and Competition for Services in Open Source Software. Inf Syst Res. 2013;24(4):1068--1086.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Law, social and behavioral sciences

    • Economics

    • Psychology

• Information systems

  • Information systems applications

    • Collaborative and social computing systems and tools

      • Open source software