IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jindec/v55y2007i4p691-714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is The General Public Licence A Rational Choice?

Author

Listed:
  • ARNOLD POLANSKI

Abstract

Open source projects are networks of developers, distributors and end‐users of non‐proprietary created knowledge goods. It has been argued that this form of organization has some advantages over the firm or market coordination. I show that for sufficiently convex and modular projects, proprietary licences are not able to sustain sequential knowledge production which, however, can be carried out if the project is run on the open source basis.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnold Polanski, 2007. "Is The General Public Licence A Rational Choice?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 691-714, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:55:y:2007:i:4:p:691-714
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00326.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00326.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00326.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leslie M. Marx & Steven A. Matthews, 2000. "Dynamic Voluntary Contribution to a Public Project," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(2), pages 327-358.
    2. Jerry R. Green & Suzanne Scotchmer, 1995. "On the Division of Profit in Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 20-33, Spring.
    3. Moore, John & Repullo, Rafael, 1988. "Subgame Perfect Implementation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1191-1220, September.
    4. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Some Simple Economics of Open Source," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 197-234, June.
    5. Yeon-Koo Che & József Sákovics, 2004. "A Dynamic Theory of Holdup," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1063-1103, July.
    6. Compte, Olivier & Jehiel, Philippe, 2003. "Voluntary contributions to a joint project with asymmetric agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 334-342, October.
    7. Anat R. Admati & Motty Perry, 1991. "Joint Projects without Commitment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(2), pages 259-276.
    8. Carmen Matutes & Pierre Regibeau & Katharine Rockett, 1996. "Optimal Patent Design and the Diffusion of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 60-83, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    2. Terrence August & Wei Chen & Kevin Zhu, 2021. "Competition Among Proprietary and Open-Source Software Firms: The Role of Licensing in Strategic Contribution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 3041-3066, May.
    3. Pollock, R., 2008. "Cumulative Innovation, Experimentation and the Hold-Up Problem," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0817, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    4. Tesoriere, Antonio & Balletta, Luigi, 2017. "A dynamic model of open source vs proprietary R&D," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 221-239.
    5. Luigi Balletta & Antonio Tesoriere, 2020. "Cumulative innovation, open source, and distance to frontier," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(6), pages 1875-1920, December.
    6. Dongryul Lee & Byung Kim, 2013. "Motivations for Open Source Project Participation and Decisions of Software Developers," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 41(1), pages 31-57, January.
    7. Gastón Llanes, 2019. "Competitive strategy for open and user innovation," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 280-297, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steven A. Matthews, 2008. "Achievable Outcomes of Dynamic Contribution Games, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 11-016, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 20 Jun 2011.
    2. , A., 2013. "Achievable outcomes of dynamic contribution games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), May.
    3. May Elsayyad & Florian Morath, 2016. "Technology Transfers For Climate Change," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1057-1084, August.
    4. Tajika, Tomoya, 2020. "Contribute once! Full efficiency in a dynamic contribution game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 228-239.
    5. Altınok, Ahmet & Yılmaz, Murat, 2018. "Dynamic voluntary contribution to a public project under time inconsistency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 114-140.
    6. Huseyin Yildirim, 2023. "Who fares better in teamwork?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 54(2), pages 299-324, June.
    7. Johannes Hörner & Andrzej Skrzypacz, 2016. "Selling Information," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(6), pages 1515-1562.
    8. Cason, Timothy N. & Zubrickas, Robertas, 2019. "Donation-based crowdfunding with refund bonuses," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 452-471.
    9. Gopal Das Varma & Giuseppe Lopomo, 2010. "Non‐Cooperative Entry Deterrence In License Auctions: Dynamic Versus Sealed Bid," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 450-476, June.
    10. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    11. Steven A. Matthews, 2006. "Smooth Monotone Contribution Games," PIER Working Paper Archive 06-018, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    12. Wioletta Dziuda & Ronen Gradwohl, 2015. "Achieving Cooperation under Privacy Concerns," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 142-173, August.
    13. Chen, Yi, 2020. "A revision game of experimentation on a common threshold," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Guéron, Yves, 2015. "Failure of gradualism under imperfect monitoring," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 128-145.
    15. Tan, Jonathan H.W. & Breitmoser, Yves & Bolle, Friedel, 2015. "Voluntary contributions by consent or dissent," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 106-121.
    16. Wright, Brian D. & Pardey, Philip G. & Nottenburg, Carol & Koo, Bonwoo, 2007. "Agricultural Innovation: Investments and Incentives," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 48, pages 2533-2603, Elsevier.
    17. Jeongmeen Suh & Murat Yılmaz, 2019. "Economics of Open Source Technology: A Dynamic Approach," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 254-280, March.
    18. Pitchford, Rohan & Snyder, Christopher M., 2004. "A solution to the hold-up problem involving gradual investment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 88-103, January.
    19. Yu, Zhixian, 2022. "Contribution games with asymmetric agents," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Chantal Marlats, 2021. "Reputation effects in stochastic games with two long-lived players," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(1), pages 1-31, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:55:y:2007:i:4:p:691-714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-1821 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.