Penguin in a new suit: A tale of how de novo entrants emerged to harness free and open source software communities

Industrial and Corporate Change

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 913-943

  Dahlander, Linus ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE; SOFTWARE;

HARNESS; SPHENISCIDAE;

EID: 35649003051     PISSN: 09606491     EISSN: 14643650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtm026     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Argyres, N. S. and J. P. Liebeskind (1998), 'Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology,' Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 35, 427-454.
2. Arrow, K. J. (1962), 'Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation,' in R. R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
3. Arundel, A. (2001), 'The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation,' Research Policy, 30, 611-624.
4. Bezroukov, N. (1999), 'Open source software development as a special type of academic research (critique of vulgar Raymondism),' First Monday, 4.
5. Bitzer, J., W. Schrettl and P. J. H. Schröder (2004), Intrinsic motivation in open source software development. Working Paper. Available at: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bitzerschrettlschroder.pdf
6. Bonaccorsi, A. and C. Rossi (2003), Comparing motivations of individual programmers and firms to take part in the open source movement. From community to business. Working Paper. Available at: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bnaccorsirossimotivationlong.pdf
7. Carroll, G. R., L. S. Bigelow, M.-D. L. Seidel and L. B. Tsai (1996), 'The fates of de novo and de alio producers in the American automobile industry 1885-1981,' Strategic Management Journal, 17, 117-137.
8. Cohen, W. M., A. Goto, A. Nagata, R. R. Nelson and J. P. Walsh (2002), 'R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States,' Research Policy, 31, 1349-1367.
9. Colyvas, J., M. Crow, A. Gelijns, R. Mazzoleni, R. R. Nelson, N. Rosenberg and B. H. Sampat (2002), 'How do university inventions get into practice?,' Management Science, 48, 61-72.
10. Dahlander, L. and M. Magnusson (2005), 'Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms,' Research Policy, 34, 481-493.
11. Dahlander, L. and M. W. Wallin (2006), 'A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets,' Research Policy, 35, 1243-1259.
12. Dalle, J.-M. and N. Jullien (2003), "Libre' software: Turning software into institutions,' Research Policy, 32, 1-11.
13. David, P. A. (2004), 'Understanding the emergence of 'open science' institutions: Functionalist economics in historical context,' Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 571-589.
14. David, P. A. and F. Rullani (2006), Micro-dynamics of free and open source software development: Lurking, laboring and launching new projects on SourceForge. Working Paper.
15. David, P. A., A. H. Waterman and S. Arora (2003), First full findings from FLOSS-US: The free/libre and open source developer survey for 2003. SIEPR Working Paper. Available at: http://www-cepr.stanford.edu/programs/ OpenSoftware_David/David_Waterman-Arora(2003)_abs.html.
16. Eisenberg, R. S. and R. R. Nelson (2002), 'Public vs. proprietary science: A fruitful tension?,' Academic Medicine, 77, 1392-1399.
17. Feller, I. (1990), 'Universities as engines of R&D based economic growth: They think they can,' Research Policy, 19, 335-348.
18. FLOSSmole Project (2004-2006), SourceForge Available at: http://ossmole.sourceforge.net.
19. Free Software Foundation. Retrieved 2006. Available at: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html.
20. Franke, N. and S. Shah (2003), 'How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users,' Research Policy, 32, 157-178.
21. Ghosh, R. A., R. Glott, B. Krieger and G. Robles (2002), Free/libre and open source software:SSurvey and study. Part IV: survey of developers. International Institute of Infonomics: Maastricht: Merit. http://flossproject.org/report/.
22. Ghosh, R. A. and R. Glott (2005), The open source community as an environment for skills development and employment generation. Proceedings of the European Academy of Management conference EURAM 2005, Munich, May.
23. Gruber, M. and J. Henkel (2006), 'New ventures based on open innovation: an empirical analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux,' International Journal of Technology Management, 33, 356-372.
24. Hardin, G. (1968), 'The tragedy of the commons,' Science, 162 1243-1248.
25. Harhoff, D., J. Henkel and E. von Hippel (2003), 'Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations,' Research Policy, 32, 1753-1769.
26. Heller, M. A. and R. S. Eisenberg (1998), 'Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research,' Science, 280, 698-701.
27. Hellström, T. (2003), 'Governing the virtual academic commons,' Research Policy, 32, 391-401.
28. Hertel, G., S. Niedner and S. Herrmann (2003), 'Motivation of software developers in open source projects: An Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel,' Research Policy, 32, 1159-1177.
29. Hess, D. J. (1997), Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York University Press: New York.
30. Jeppesen, L. B. and L. Frederiksen (2006), 'Why firm-established user communities work for innovation: The personal attributes of innovative users in the case of computer-controlled music instruments,' Organization Science, 17, 45-64.
31. Kelty, C. M. (2001), 'Free software/free science,' First Monday, 6.
32. Klepper, S. (2002), 'The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US automobile industry,' Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 645-666.
33. Klevorick, A. K., R. C. Levin, R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter (1995), 'On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities,' Research Policy, 24, 185-205.
34. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999), Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
35. Kogut, B. and A. Metiu (2001), 'Open-source software development and distributed innovation,' Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17 248-264.
36. Lakhani, K. R., B. Wolf, J. Bates and C. DiBona (2002), The Boston Consulting Group Hacker Survey. Available at: http://www.osdn.com/bcg/.
37. Laursen, K. and A. Salter (2006), My precious technology: The role of legal appropriability strategy in shaping innovative performance. Working Paper.
38. Lee, G. K. and R. F. Cole (2003), 'From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development,' Organization Science, 14, 633-649.
39. Lerner, J. and J. Tirole (2002), 'Some simple economics of open source,' Journal of Industrial Economics, 52, 197-234.
40. Levin, R. C., A. K. Klevorick, R. Nelson and S. Winter (1987), 'Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development,' Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783-831.
41. Levy, S. (1984), Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Anchor Books: New York.
42. Mansfield, E. (1991), 'Academic research and industrial innovation,' Research Policy, 20, 1-12.
43. Maxwell, E. (2006), 'Open standards, open source, open innovation: harnessing the benefits of openness,' Innovations, 119-176.
44. Merton, R. (1973), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
45. Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Publications: California.
46. Mitsubishi Research Institute (2004), Free/libre/open source software Japanese developers online survey (FLOSS-JP). Available at: http://oss.mri.co.jp/floss-jp/report_en.html.
47. Mowery, D. and B. Sampat (2001), 'University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925-1980,' Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 781-814.
48. Mowery, D. and A. Ziedonis (2002), 'Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States,' Research Policy, 31, 399-418.
49. Nelson, R. R. (1959), 'The simple economics of basic scientific research,' The Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297-306.
50. Nelson, R. R. (1995), 'Why should managers be thinking about technology policy?,' Strategic Management Journal, 16, 581-588.
51. Nelson, R. R. (2002), 'The problem of market bias in modern capitalist economies,' Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 207-244.
52. Nelson, R. R. (2004), 'The market economy, and the scientific commons,' Research Policy, 33, 455-471.
53. Nelson, A. J. (2005), 'Cacophony or harmony? Multivocal logics and technology licensing by Stanford University Department of Music', Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 93-118.
54. Nelson, R. R. and B. N. Sampat (2001), 'Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance,' Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 44, 31-54.
55. O'Mahony, S. (2002), The Emergence of a New Commercial Actor. Community Managed Software Projects. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Stanford University.
56. O'Mahony, S. (2003), 'Guarding the commons: How community managed software projects protect their work,' Research Policy, 32, 1179-1198.
57. Open Source Initiative. Retrieved (2006), Available at: http://opensource.org/licenses/.
58. Raymond, E. (1999a), The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Available at: http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/.
59. Raymond, E. (1999b), The magic cauldron. Available at: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/.
60. Rosenberg, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics Cambridge University Press: New York.
61. Rosenberg, N. (1990), 'Why do firms do basic research (with their own money?),' Research Policy, 19, 165-174.
62. Rosenberg, N. and L. F. Birdzell (1990), 'Science, technology and Western miracle,' Scientific American, 263, 42-54.
63. Rosenberg, N. and R. R. Nelson (1994), 'American universities and technical advance in industry,' Research Policy, 23, 323-348.
64. Sourceforge. Retreived February (2006), Available at: http://sourceforge.net.
65. Tuomi, I. (2002), 'Networks of innovation: Change and meaning in the age of the Internet'. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
66. U.S. Census Bureau. Available at: http://www.census.gov/.
67. West, J. and S. O'Mahony (2004), Contrasting community building in sponsored and community founded open source projects. Working Paper. Available at: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/westomahony.pdf.
68. Wichmann, T. (2002), Free/Iibre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study. Part I: Survey of firms. Berlecon Research and Maastricht: International Institute of Infonomics/Merit: Berlin. Available at: http://flossproject.org/report.
69. von Hippel, E. and G. von Krogh (2003), 'Open source software and the 'private-collective' innovation model: Issues for organization science,' Organization Science, 14, 209-223.
70. von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
71. von Hippel, E. and R. Katz (2002), 'Shifting innovation to users via toolkits,' Management Science, 48, 821-833.
72. Weber, S. (2004), The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
73. Ziman, J. (1976), Reliable Knowledge. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
74. Ziman, J. (1994), Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic "Steady State". Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
75. Ziman, J. (2000), Real Science: What it is, and What it means. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.