Open source software and commercial production differ significantly from one another, particularly evident in the aim of each. Whilst commercial production seeks solely to realise profit through sale of a complete product, open source software seeks to provide communities with a service.
Businesses, which realise profit through sale of commercially produced software, including Bill Gates’ Microsoft, protect their codes from all individuals external to the company. This is evident through assessment of companies alike Microsoft, where in-house software developers are the sole individuals permitted access to the company’s software codes. Thereby the success of this business model is measured through economic performance analysis conducted by the corporation.
This is in direct contrast to open source software which provides communities with a service. This service provides all with the software’s source code. Individuals are thereby able to view, amend and use the software within a limited-restriction licence. Through this description it is illustrated that open source software development and Axel Bruns’ theory, Produsage, are closely tied. Bruns states that reasons an individual contributes to open source codes extends from gaining social recognition to gaining and showcasing skills (Bruns, 2008, pg. 43). This however leads to potential problems as the success of the software is dependent on continual contribution and interest of users.
It is interesting to note that a key difference between closed and open source software is the notion of complete. This is illustrated as companies, including Microsoft, sell to users what they have created as complete software, often a package, which has been created within certain boundaries. These boundaries are described by Shirky as resource horizons. The resource horizon provides an upper boundary of either money or time in which a project must be completed (quoted in Bruns, 2008, pg. 38). Anything that exists above this upper limit cannot be completed because of the company’s “size or scope” (quoted in Bruns, 2008, pg. 38). Thereby updates or amendments to software are released as separate packages at a later date.
This is unlike open source software, which is never considered as complete. With technological advancements comes immediate realisation of fault with pre-existing softwares. Thereby individuals are immediately able to amend faults in open source software and improve its content. A prime example of this is the open source software, Firefox. Firefox is an extremely popular web browser program, available on numerous operating systems, which assists users by instantly updating software registered to the hard drive (Rothman, 2006, online).
Businesses, which realise profit through sale of commercially produced software, including Bill Gates’ Microsoft, protect their codes from all individuals external to the company. This is evident through assessment of companies alike Microsoft, where in-house software developers are the sole individuals permitted access to the company’s software codes. Thereby the success of this business model is measured through economic performance analysis conducted by the corporation.
This is in direct contrast to open source software which provides communities with a service. This service provides all with the software’s source code. Individuals are thereby able to view, amend and use the software within a limited-restriction licence. Through this description it is illustrated that open source software development and Axel Bruns’ theory, Produsage, are closely tied. Bruns states that reasons an individual contributes to open source codes extends from gaining social recognition to gaining and showcasing skills (Bruns, 2008, pg. 43). This however leads to potential problems as the success of the software is dependent on continual contribution and interest of users.
It is interesting to note that a key difference between closed and open source software is the notion of complete. This is illustrated as companies, including Microsoft, sell to users what they have created as complete software, often a package, which has been created within certain boundaries. These boundaries are described by Shirky as resource horizons. The resource horizon provides an upper boundary of either money or time in which a project must be completed (quoted in Bruns, 2008, pg. 38). Anything that exists above this upper limit cannot be completed because of the company’s “size or scope” (quoted in Bruns, 2008, pg. 38). Thereby updates or amendments to software are released as separate packages at a later date.
This is unlike open source software, which is never considered as complete. With technological advancements comes immediate realisation of fault with pre-existing softwares. Thereby individuals are immediately able to amend faults in open source software and improve its content. A prime example of this is the open source software, Firefox. Firefox is an extremely popular web browser program, available on numerous operating systems, which assists users by instantly updating software registered to the hard drive (Rothman, 2006, online).
References
Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.
Rothman, W. 2006. Why two browsers are better than one. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1551747,00.html (accessed April 29, 2008).
No comments:
Post a Comment