IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpio/0409008.html

Open Source Software Development Patterns and License Terms

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandre Gaudeul

    (University of East Anglia - Norwich)

Abstract

This paper examines the choice of license terms along the development of a piece of software. Three licenses are compared, the proprietary one, the Berkeley Software Distribution, and the General Public License. The choice of one or the other license depends on the characteristics of the software's user base, the market conditions on the developers' job market and the costs involved in maintaining a proprietary software vs. the costs involved in coordinating a software project in a decentralized fashion. That choice influences the distribution of welfare between users, developers and the software's development leader. It also determines the software's pace of development and thus the level of welfare generated. The model explains why a software's license terms may change along its development. Several scenarii may arise, depending on the initial conditions and the chance events along the life of the project. In the context of this paper, open-source license terms are chosen even when they result in a reduction in global welfare. Welfare is increased by forbidding the use of the GPL license terms and going back to the alternative between proprietary and public domain licenses.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandre Gaudeul, 2004. "Open Source Software Development Patterns and License Terms," Industrial Organization 0409008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpio:0409008
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/io/papers/0409/0409008.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin Pappas Johnson, 2002. "Open Source Software: Private Provision of a Public Good," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 637-662, December.
    2. Hirshleifer, Jack, 1971. "The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive Activity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(4), pages 561-574, September.
    3. Cowan, Robin & Jonard, Nicolas & Özman, Müge, 2003. "Knowledge Dynamics in a Network Industry," Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Grossman, Gene M & Shapiro, Carl, 1987. "Dynamic R&D Competition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(386), pages 372-387, June.
    5. Alexandre Gaudeul, 2004. "The LaTeX project: A case study of open-source software," Industrial Organization 0409009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Stanley M. Besen & Leo J. Raskind, 1991. "An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 3-27, Winter.
    7. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Bruno Biais & Enrico Perotti, 2008. "Entrepreneurs and new ideas," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 1105-1125, December.
    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. Johnson, Justin P., 2006. "Collaboration, peer review and open source software," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 477-497, November.
    2. Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2006. "Open Source Software: The New Intellectual Property Paradigm," NBER Working Papers 12148, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    2. Davis, Lee, 1999. "R&D Investments, Information and Strategy," Working Papers 10-1999, Copenhagen Business School, Department of International Economics and Management.
    3. Marini, Marco A., 2006. "The value of a new idea: knowledge transmission, workers’ mobility and market structure," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 697-706.
    4. Grossman, Herschel I., 2005. "Inventors and pirates: creative activity and intellectual property rights," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 269-285, June.
    5. Ramello Giovanni B., 2005. "Intellectual Property and the Markets of Ideas," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    7. Sebastian von Engelhardt & Sushmita Swaminathan, 2008. "Open Source Software, Closed Source Software or Both: Impacts on Industry Growth and the Role of Intellectual Property Rights," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 799, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Klinger, Sabine & Heilemann, Ullrich, 2005. "Zu wenig Wettbewerb? Zu Stand und Entwicklung der Genauigkeit makroökonomischer Prognosen," Technical Reports 2005,16, Technische Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475: Komplexitätsreduktion in multivariaten Datenstrukturen.
    9. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Alessandro Stanziani, 2004. "Wine Reputation and Quality Controls: The Origin of the AOCs in 19th Century France," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 149-167, September.
    11. Ariel Pakes & Mark Schankerman, 1984. "The Rate of Obsolescence of Patents, Research Gestation Lags, and the Private Rate of Return to Research Resources," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 73-88, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Winter, Sidney G., 2006. "The logic of appropriability: From Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1100-1106, October.
    13. Sidney G. Winter & Gabriel Szulanski, 2001. "Replication as Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(6), pages 730-743, December.
    14. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, Kseniya (Матросова, Ксения), 2017. "Development and Analysis of Economic Models of Innovation Incentives [Разработка И Исследование Экономических Моделей Стимулирования Инновационных Процессов]," Working Papers 061713, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    15. Thomas Hellmann & Enrico Perotti, 2011. "The Circulation of Ideas in Firms and Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1813-1826, October.
    16. Knut Blind & Jakob Edler, 2003. "Idiosyncrasies of the Software Development Process and Their Relation to Software Patents: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 71-96, May.
    17. Armin Mertens & Marc Scheufen, 2024. "Intellectual property and fourth industrial revolution technologies: how the patent system is shaping the future in the data-driven economy," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 275-310, April.
    18. Kisang Lee, 1984. "Market Structure and International Technology Transfer," Discussion Papers 622, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    19. Stan J. Liebowitz & Richard Watt, 2006. "How To Best Ensure Remuneration For Creators In The Market For Music? Copyright And Its Alternatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 513-545, September.
    20. Bruno Biais & Enrico Perotti, 2008. "Entrepreneurs and new ideas," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 1105-1125, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L - Industrial Organization

    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:wpa:wuwpio:0409008. 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: EconWPA The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask EconWPA to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.