Paper Bonaccorsi and rosi

Master on Free Software

Companies and Communities in FLOSS

Comments on:

Why profit-oriented companies enter the OS field? Intrinsic vs. extrinsic incentives

Cristina Rossi and, Andrea Bonaccorsi 2005


Overview

● Introduction● Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in FLOSS● Discrepancy Between Attitudes and Behaviours● Four Different Groups of Firms● Conclusions


Introduction

● Rossi and Bonaccorsi are economists● Relations between companies and communities

in Floss are studied by:● Software engineers● Economists● Sociologists● Psychologists● Lawyers


Introduction

● Incentives of firms that engage in the field● Empirical evidence

● Survey on 146 Italian companies● Community-based incentives not into practice● Attitudes vs. Behaviours


Introduction

● If I say...

Companies know how to act, but then they go and do something else

● What do you think?


Introduction

Let's come up with a list of fun and for profit motivations for individuals


Introduction

● Extrinsic motivations for developers● Low opportunity costs● Monetary rewards● Reputation among peers● Future career benefits● Learning● Contributions from the community● Technological concerns● Filling an unfilled market


Introduction

● Intrinsic motivations for developers● Creative pleasure● Altruism● Sense of belonging to the community● Fight against proprietary software


Introduction

● How about companies?● They are composed by individuals● Even intrinsically motivated individuals may serve to a profit orientation in their company

● Why would they allocate employees in the production of a collective good?


Introduction

Let's come up with a list of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for companies


Introduction

● Extrinsic motivations for companies● Independence from price and license policies of large software companies

● Supply of software-related services● Indirect revenues by selling related products● Exploitation of the R&D activity from the developers' and the other OS firms

● Software testing by the users' community● Availability of good OSS technicians● Lower hardware costs● Security concerns


Introduction

● Intrinsic motivations for companies● NONE!!


Introduction

No, seriously...


Introduction

● Intrinsic motivations for companies● Conforming to the values of the OSS community (not betraying developers' trust)

● Code sharing with the community (reciprocating to sustain cooperation)

● Fight for software freedom (reducing market power of large software companies)


Introduction

● Some questions of this study● If companies say that they are intrinsic-driven, do they really act as such?

● If there is discrepancy, is there a characterization?

● If there is not such discrepancy, is there a characterization?


Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in FLOSS

● The study● Collection of data from 146 companies● Small companies (1 – 300 employees)● Young companies (51% born after 1998)● Survey, mark 1 agree – 5 disagree● EM 1 – 8 ● IM 1 – 3



Let's take a look at EM 1 – 5



● OSS allows small enterprises to afford innovation 4.0● Contributions from the OSS community are useful to fix bugs and improve software 3.9● OSS is reliable and of high quality 3.9● Independence from price and license policies of the large software companies 3.8● Availability of good IT specialists in the field of OSS 3.4



Let's take a look at EM 6 – 8



● Studying the code written by other programmers (using it for new solutions) 3.3● Gaining a reputation among customers and competitors by opening the code 3.1● Having products not available on the proprietary software market 3.0



They take (EM 1 – 5) from the community but they do not learn from the community (EM 6 – 8)



Let's take a look at IM 1 – 3



● Agreement with the values of the OSS movement 3.8● Placing source code and skills at disposal of the OSS community 3.4● Thinking that software should not be a proprietary assets 3.0



Do they believe in OSS or is just something they have to deal with?



Do you have the feeling that what they do is aimed at sustaining cooperation with developers?


Attitudes vs Behaviours

● Discrepancy between attitudes and behaviours● In order to compare what they say with what they do

Let's come up with a list of metrics for involvement in OSS



● Social links with the OSS community● OSS developers the firm has social contact with 2 (mean)

● Reliability attached to the information received by them 4.1 (1 - 5)



● Involvement in OSS advertising activities● Time devoted to OSS advertising activities 42.6 days a year (mean)



● Participation in OSS projects● Projects joined since the very start of the OSS activities 3.8 (mean)

● Projects joined in 2002 1.6 (mean)● Projects coordinated since the very start of the OSS activities 1.1 (mean)

● Projects coordinated during 2002 0.5 (mean)● Percentage of LOCs contributed on average to each project 10.6%

● Contributions incorporated in project official versions 6.9 (mean)



It does not look like they really get involved

They look more like takers than like givers

They all advertise their activities to a similar extent



● The study takes then a closer look at the correlations between attitudes and behaviours● In general, saying that they will does not mean that they really will, does it?



● They set up a classification from these results● Non Community Oriented Firms 34.2%● Incognito Community Oriented Firms 8.9%● Community-Oriented Firms 18.5%● Opportunistic Firms 30.8%



● Non Community Oriented Firms 34.2%● No problem, they are coherent● They act as takers● They are profit-driven



● Incognito Community Oriented Firms 8.9%● Poor empirical evidence in this study (13)● They are consistent with their interests● They may be forced to keep the link with the developers



● Community-Oriented Firms 18.5%● Intriguing● They are early adopters● They have the best connections with the community



● Opportunistic Firms 30.8%● Extrinsic nature of community-oriented acts● They are not consistent with their sayings



So...

What do you think could be the reason for community-oriented firms to act like they do?



● The study presents an hypothesis

“Firms whose promoting partners have been previously involved in Open Source activities on

an individual basis are more likely to show community-based attitudes and to behave

consistently with them”



● The hypothesis is tested to find that:● 80% of community-oriented firms are likely to be started by open source developers

● They know how to behave and they do it● 60% of opportunistic firms are likely to be started by open source developers

● They know how to pretend and they do it


Conclusions

● Companies sometimes pretend they care● Companies sometimes care● Companies are starting to learn how to behave like hackers


Conclusions

What do you think?

Economy & Finance

Paper Bonaccorsi and rosi