IP: Re: Daily Report from The Chronicle of Higher Education (fwd)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: "Gerry Faulhaber" <gerry-faulhaber () home com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: Re: Daily Report from The Chronicle of Higher Education (fwd)
> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 08:16:21 -0500
>
> Evans is a well-known consultant and has done serious scholarly work in the
> "new antitrust" area.  His "Future of Open Source Software" is a
> not-very-scholarly thought piece in which he compares the incentives,
> motivations and viability of proprietary vs. open-source software.  In
> keeping with a sub-scholarly publication (Milken Institute Review), this
> article simply outlines some ideas without a rigorous theoretical or
> empirical research base.
>
> But the point of the article is perfectly sensible; does open source have a
> future, and why or why not?  I don't understand how Prof. O'Donnell could
> possibly find this provocative, and be concerned that someone might think he
> is "endorsing" this article.  Economists love to examine various
> institutional arrangements for producing economic value and this is an
> excellent example of such a problem.  I would like to have seen Evans take a
> more serious research look at this issue, because it's one I've puzzled
> about as well.
>
> I have been less puzzled than Evans, however, because we academics live in a
> world that is very much like open-source programmers.  We spend our lives
> producing research that is published openly in scholarly journals for all to
> see and read.  We do so because it establishes our scholarly reputations;
> when we look for jobs, we know our colleagues will review our publications,
> and the better our publication record then more likely we will get the plum
> job.  But bottom line: we don't get paid for our articles.
>
> But note this fits well with Evans' thesis, that open-source is unlikely to
> ever generate much consumer-oriented code.  This is analogous to saying that
> no real person ever reads academic journals, and academics don't expect them
> to.  We write, essentially, for each other.  However, we also write
> textbooks and semi-popular books as well as research articles, and guess
> what?  We get paid for books!  When we do popular writing, we academics use
> the proprietary model; when we do research/academic writing, we use the
> open-source model.  So I suspect Evans is correct; open-source code is
> unlikely to touch directly the average Windows user, but it will be
> profoundly important for the IT professional.
>
> Gerald Faulhaber
> Business and Public Policy Department
> Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
> Philadephia, PA 19104
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> To: <ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com>
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 7:36 AM
> Subject: IP: Daily Report from The Chronicle of Higher Education (fwd)
>
>
> >
> > >From: jod () ccat sas upenn edu (James J. O'Donnell)
> > >
> > >
> > >Dave, I do *not* endorse this article, but in the spirit of IP
> provocation
> > >pass it along for stimulation.
> > >
> > >jo'd
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >MAGAZINES & JOURNALS
> > >
> > >A glance at the fall issue of "The Milken Institute Review":
> > >The future of open-source software
> > >
> > >David Evans, a consultant with National Economic Research
> > >Associates, an economic-consulting company, examines the
> > >different motives driving open-source and proprietary software
> > >and ponders the future of the former.
> > >
> > >The motivations for following a proprietary model, he writes,
> > >are "easily understood -- it's about making money."
> > >Open-sourcers, by contrast, create software for a number of
> > >reasons, few of them motivated by material gain. Some simply
> > >enjoy writing code, some crave recognition as skilled
> > >programmers, some think it will enhance their resumes.
> > >
> > >But those reasons, combined with some licensing models that
> > >threaten proprietary copyrights, do not bode well for the
> > >industry's sustainability. In essence, Mr. Evans writes, without
> > >the motivation of personal gain, open-source programmers might
> > >not be willing to work on projects that, while uninteresting and
> > >unchallenging, are necessary to make open-source software appeal
> > >to a wide audience. And the often rough-edged and technical
> > >products, while allowing users to tinker with them, have a
> > >limited appeal.
> > >
> > >In the end, open-source software is written by techies for
> > >techies, and if that narrow audience is catered to, open-source
> > >might have a promising, if unprofitable, future. But if
> > >open-sourcers attempt to appeal to the masses -- by, say,
> > >marketing Linux as a mainstream operating system -- they might
> > >institutionalize and overextend themselves out of existence.
> > >
> > >The article is available online at
> > >http://www.milkeninstitute.org/poe.cfm?point=review (requires
> > >Adobe Acrobat Reader, available free at
> > >http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html).
> >
> > For archives see:
> > http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
> >

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/