Relationships between Open Source Software Companies and Communities
Research paper: Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms. By Linus Dahlander, Mats G. Magnusson. Research Policy 34 (2005) 481–493
Introduction
Research Questions
"In firms, the relationships between developers and their employers are regulated by contracts. Consequently, these developers employed by firms receive salary and other types of financial compensation. In OSS projects, anyone is free to join and the relations are informal. Whereas firm-based software creation is normally restricted to relations within the firm, OSS developers are not bound to firms but are dispersed in all parts of the world. The use of communities created or induced by management appears to be a balancing act, where the influence from the firm’s side, in terms of the degree of control and the strategic direction that is imposed, is a key issue. With too much control it is questionable whether it will be possible to generate the energy, interest and creativity that is at the core of “naturally” emerged communities.With too little control and direction, however, the effects for the firm may be small, or even counterproductive, in case the community’s goals work against the organization. This ought to be even more pronounced in the case of OSS, as management of the firm has no formal influence over the community based on their standing in the firm, and the overall value of openness and sharing prevalent within OSS is apparently conflicting with the firms’ ambitions to generate profit.
This apparent management challenge has
directed our study to a number of research questions focusing
on the inter-relationship between the firms and
the communities, the first one of which is as follows:
Research question 1: What different approaches exist to handle OSS firm–community relationships?
The inter-relationship between OSS firms and communities seems to comprise a set of tensions and inconsistencies in terms of goals, norms and values, potentially leading to different managerial issues. This leads us to the second research question.
Research question 2: What managerial challenges do OSS firms encounter in their community-related activities?"
Finally,we address theway that OSS firms deal with their communities, at an operational level.
Thus, we pose the third research question.
Research question 3: What operational means do OSS firms use in order to handle their relationships to communities?
=ypology of community - firm relationships
"We propose a typology of three different basic approaches used by firms to inter-relate to their communities:
(1) symbiotic;
(2) commensalistic; and
(3) parasitic.
The different approaches should, however, not be seen as distinctive categories, but rather as steps on a continuum regarding the benefits for the communities deliberately searched by the OSS firms. The parasitic approach implies that the firm only focuses on its own benefits, without taking into account that its actions might harm the community. This is a possible approach that might occur, even though we did not observe it in our cases. An obvious risk related to the commensalistic approach is that, over time, it turns into a parasitic relationship, where the firm comes to be perceived as a negative influence by the community, either in terms of its violation of basic norms, values and principles, or that it is simply perceived as a free rider.
It is clear that no OSS firm would deliberately choose a parasitic approach, as causing harm to the community that the firm is feeding upon does not appear to be a sustainable business model. However, given the fundamental differences between different actors’ rationales to participate in OSS development, the line between what constitutes a commensalistic and a parasitic approach may be fine, and not always clear.
Three of the observed firms – MySQL, Roxen and SOT – have actively attempted to create a community in relation to their product, but only MySQL has been successful in reaching a large number of users.
The Symbiotic Approach
"The symbiotic approach implies that the firm tries to co-develop itself and the community. In the development of both the firm and the community, the effects on the other party are considered when decisions are taken. In order for this to work, it is necessary for firm management to be directly involved in community development, as legitimacy to influence the community can hardly be gained from having a formal role in a firm, but on the status gained in the community, based on its norms and values. One way of viewing this is to consider the community as an extended part of the knowledge base of the OSS firm, however outside of its formal span of control. This approach is similar to the present practice to develop and manage communities of practice within firms (Wenger and Snyder, 2000), presenting a paradox to managers in terms of handling the diametrically opposed needs for openness and control. However, in the case of OSS, this tension is probably even stronger as community members do not necessarily have any formal connection to the firms, but can disregard their goals and strategies completely in case they are not in line with those of the community. Of the firms studied here, only MySQL can today be regarded as having a clearly symbiotic approach, even though Roxen and SOT initially revealed similar patterns of activities. Over time, the focus on the community at Roxen and SOT decreased, as the firms had problems in appropriating adequate returns. Using the symbiotic approach implies that the firm is focusing on the realization of mutual benefits for both the firm and its community. While the firms’ ambition to manage their communities in this case is significantly lower, the norms and values of OSS are respected and taken into consideration by the OSS firms. Some minor influence on the development direction takes place by active participation in various projects, but there is no strategic co-alignment between the firms and the communities. Firms adopting this approach try to benefit from the work not only performed in their related communities but also go to great lengths in their attempts to reciprocate these benefits. One way of doing so is to give internally developed codes to the communities.
Another way for the firm to be perceived as useful by the OSS developers is to provide a well-functioning infrastructure that facilitates the performance of different development tasks and allows for stimulating interaction. The background of key individuals within OSS activities has been an important factor for the firms to be perceived as something positive from the perspective of the communities, even though the relationships between these firms and their communities to some extent have deteriorated over time as the firms have become more commercially oriented."
The Commensalistic Approach
"An intermediate way to inter-relate to the community is to use a commensalistic approach, i.e. to benefit from the co-existence with another entity while leaving it without harm. The basic idea in this specific context is to thrive on communal resources that are continually replenished, while keeping the direct involvement in the development of these communal resources to a minimum. Cendio is predominantly using a commensalistic approach, even though there are some components that more resemble symbiosis, primarily the giving away of codes that from a business perspective is not absolutely necessary to retain. In this case, as we are dealing with social systems paying much attention to the diffusion and use of knowledge, one aspect that appears to be important to attend to is the legal mechanisms that govern the software which commensalistic OSS firms use, and how these mechanisms relate to the norms and values of their communities."
From the case studies, we distinguish seven managerial issues that are critical to attend to in relation to the community:
(1) respecting the norms and values of the OSS communities;
(2) using licenses in a fruitful manner;
(3) attracting developers and users;
(4) handling the resource consumption related to community development;
(5) aligning different interests about the nature of work;
(6) resolving ambiguity about control and ownership;
(7) getting acceptance for using the community-developed software in commercial applications and avoiding direct conflicts.
First, from the case studies it is clear that a critical
challenge is the norms and values that defend the communal
resource from being depleted by firms. Beside
the legal mechanisms (primarily licenses), the joint effort
is protected through the social norms and values
that are diffused across users and developers. Despite
the difficulties to influence the norms and values of
communities, some attempts to do so were noted in
the case studies. Key individuals within projects have a
greater possibility in doing so. In the case of MySQL,
the firm emerged as the result of a fewpeople jointly developing
a database. These individuals appear, at least
to some extent, to have the capacity to influence the
community, as they are well-known and respected by it.
The firms that have established a community have also been active in creating social events—such as fairs and workshops for users and developers. In a related line of argument, O’Mahony and Ferraro (2004) find that face-to-face interactions are crucial in managing the boundaries of open projects. Apparently, social events are another means of proactively shaping social norms and values, and creating acceptance for the commercial use of knowledge created by the community.
Second, a substantial challenge when shaping the
relationships with the OSS movement is to handle the
different licenses that govern how the software resulting
from OSS projects can be used, as the ownership of
a project is a central theme in OSS (Raymond, 1999a).
Licensing schemes are, therefore, of great importance
as they influence how the software ought to be used,
and also have a significant symbolic value (Lerner and
Tirole, 2005). Hardly surprisingly, licenses are considered
to be extremely important for all firms, and they
are influenced by existing ones. They have to cope with
the problem of using existing software modules developed
by communities. When communities develop
their software they protect it from being depleted by
firms through reversed copyright schemes. This in turn
limits the possibility for firms to use it in conjunction
with internally developed source codes.
Third, an obvious challenge for the observed OSS
firms is to attract not only customers, but also developers
that can contribute to the development of new
software. Even though numerous studies have emphasized
the benefits of OSS in terms of taming complexity
(Raymond, 1999a), satisfying heterogeneous user
needs (Franke and von Hippel, 2003), and enabling the
possibility of bug reporting and development of new
codes (Lakhani et al., 2002), the use of OSS does not
imply that developers and users automatically get interested
in the project and contribute to the software
development. Apparently, a vast number of projects
compete for the attention and interest of the developers
and users. As many developers are motivated by social
factors (Raymond, 1999a; Himanen, 2001), firms have
to provide stimulating challenges and fun projects for
developers and at the same time create products that
are simple enough to attract users. At the very same
time, firms have to be able to sell customization and
other services to their customers.
Fourth, the firms face the issue of resource consumption
related to community development. In order
to create and maintain relations with the community,
the firms had to devote considerable resources (time
and money). The three firms building communities –
MySQL, Roxen and SOT – all made considerable investments
in creating their product. For example, the
MySQL community was founded after the release of
the database, and the firm has since then been active in
releasing newimprovements and functionalities, devoting
resources to building infrastructure and organizing
social events for people working in the community.
Fifth, working tightly with the community implies that the firm needs to be able to align different interests about the nature of work. The intellectual challenges for community members noted above vis-`a-vis the firms carrying through routinized tasks were, for example, noted in the case of Roxen. As the product developed by the firm matured and the primary focus changed from developing the product together with the community to selling it to customers, the firm found it increasingly difficult to work closely with the community.
Sixth, firms that are active in creating new projects
need to resolve ambiguity about control and ownership.
Earlier studies have shown that ownership of projects is critical within OSS (Raymond, 1999a; O’Mahony, 2002; O’Mahony, 2003; West and O’Mahony, 2004).
Consequently, firm involvement to some extent obstructs the possibility for a community to have the desired ownership.
Two out of four firms – Roxen and SOT – had experienced problems as the interests of firms and the communities were conflicting in terms of ownership. The developers and users of the Roxen web server went to other projects after the firm released its proprietary add-on. As the firm consciously moved away from the OSS concept, conflicts arose with the users and developers. Cendio is also a type of firm that the OSS movement consciously attempts to hinder from using community-developed codes in other ways than regulated in the licenses. Firms that release a new project – represented in the cases by MySQL, Roxen and SOT – have the possibility of making a choice of which license to use. MySQL over time changed to a dual strategy—using both the most commonly used license (GPL) and a firm specific license in order to make a clear distinction between those users that have to pay and those who can use the product for free. Roxen used the GPL-license for its product, but later on decided to sell commercial licenses for an add-on, implying a deliberate step away from the active use of the community. SOT had an interest in getting their product widely diffused and consequently used a GPL-license.
Seventh, firms that use community-established software need to get acceptance for using the community developed software in commercial applications and avoid direct conflicts. The communities largely depend on innovations being improved and shared with others.
Firms like Cendio that use existing modules and combine them in a framework, need to get acceptance from the community that as long as they obey licenses, they are not sharing everything they develop. Oneway of doing this is through being clear on the pieces of software the firm uses from different communities, and how that