Floss development and peer governance: the case of the Gnome desktop environment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v8i3.17114Keywords:
Floss, Software development, Community, Ecosystem, Governance.Abstract
Objective of the study: The article analyzes the case of GNOME, one of the most popular Free/ Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) projects, started in 1997. The concept of peer governance describes the interaction and convergence of companies, foundations, voluntary users and professionals in its development.
Methodology/ approach: The research is based on the documentary method and an organizational history approach. For this, primary and secondary digital sources were collected: institutional and FLOSS sites, blogs, community lists, documents and platforms.
Originality/ Relevance: The work allows progress, from a sociotechnical perspective, in understanding FLOSS developments and the coevolution of their technical components and community dynamics.
Main results: Three levels of governance are identified: 1. the software itself; 2. the community; 3. the ecosystem. Development cycles; community participation and organization; actors and business models, definitions and controversies, are analyzed. GNOME's trajectory is marked by the confluence of interests and coopetition between corporate actors and the FLOSS ecosystem. The life cycle shows a constant activity, which implies redefinition of its components, technological infrastructure and leadership. It is not exempt from controversies and bifurcations, similar to those evidenced in projects of this type.
Theoretical/ methodological contributions: It contributes to the concept of peer governance and its usefulness for case analysis. Reflection on data sources and research resources on the Internet is promoted.
Social/ managerial contributions: It contributes to the understanding of new forms of management and decision-making in technological development projects.
Downloads
References
Alleyne, B. (2011). Challenging Code: A sociological reading of the KDE Free Software project. Sociology, 45(3), 496-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511399620.
Baldwin, C. y von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399-1417. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618.
Bauwens, M. (2005). The political economy of peer production. CTheory, 12-1.
Benkler, Y. (2017). Open access and information commons en F. Parisi (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 2: Private and Commercial Law. Oxford University Press.
Benkler, Y., Shaw, A. y Hill, B. M. (2015). Peer production: A form of collective intelligence en T. W. Malone y M. S. Bernstein (Eds.), Handbook of collective intelligence (pp. 175-204). The MIT Press.
Berdou, E. (2007) Managing the bazaar: commercialization and peripheral participation in mature, community-led free/open source software projects. (Tesis doctoral no publicada). The London School of Economics and Political Science.
Berdou, E. (2010). Organization in open source communities: At the crossroads of the gift and market economies. Routledge.
Bijker, W. E. (1993). Do not despair: there is life after constructivism. Science, Technology, y Human Values, 18(1), 113-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800107.
Bohnsack, R. (2014). Documentary method en U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 217-233). SAGE.
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. Peter Lang.
Cheng, C., Li, B., Li, Z. Y., Zhao, Y. Q., y Liao, F. L. (2017). Developer role evolution in open source software ecosystem: An explanatory study on GNOME. Journal of computer science and technology, 32(2), 396-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-017-1728-9.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. y Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation en H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke y J. West, (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford University Press.
Coffey, A. (2014). Analysing documents en U. Flick, (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 367-380). SAGE.
Coleman, G. (2010). The Hacker Conference: A Ritual Condensation and Celebration of a Lifeworld. Anthropological Quarterly, 83(1), 47-72.
Daniel, S., Maruping, L., Cataldo, M., y Herbsleb, J. (2011). When cultures clash: Participation in open source communities and its implications for organizational commitment en ICIS 2011 Proceedings 7.
da Costa, A. D. S. M., Barros, D. F. y Martins, P. E. M. (2010). Perspectiva histórica em administração: novos objetos, novos problemas, novas abordagens. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, 50(3), 288-299.
de Icaza, M. (mayo de 2001). linux-on-the-desktop. Miguel de Icaza’s blog. https://tirania.org/blog//archive/2001/May.html.
de Icaza, M. (2002). The Story of the GNOME project. https://web.archive.org/web/20070818123652/http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html.
de Icaza, M. (29 de agosto de 2012). What Killed the Linux Desktop. Miguel de Icaza’s blog. https://tirania.org/blog/archive/2012/Aug-29.html.
de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., y Ikenami, R. K. (2018). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009.
Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J., y Ortt, J. R. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028.
The GNOME Way. (8 de agosto de 2017). Form and Function. Allan Day’s GNOME Blog. https://blogs.gnome.org/aday/2017/08/08/the-gnome-way/.
Garrett, M. (26 de septiembre de 2019). Do we need to rethink what free software is? mjg59's journal. https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52907.html.
German, D. M. (2003). The GNOME project: a case study of open source, global software development. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 8(4), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/spip.189.
German, D. M. (2004). Using software trails to reconstruct the evolution of software. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 16(6), 367-384. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.301.
GNOME. (2000). GNOME Foundation Charter Draft 0.61. GNOME Wiki. https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Resources/Charter.
GNOME. (2017). Happy birthday GNOME! http://happybirthdaygnome.org/.
GNOME. (2020a). About us. https://www.gnome.org/about/.
GNOME. (2020b). GNOME Foundation and Endless Launch Inaugural Community Engagement Challenge. https://www.gnome.org/news/2020/04/gnome-foundation-and-endless-launch-inaugural-community-engagement-challenge/.
GNOME. (2020c). GNOME Foundation Guidelines on Copyright Assignment. GNOME Wiki. https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Resources/CopyrightAssignment/Guidelines.
GNOME. (2020d). Events. https://www.gnome.org/category/events/.
GNOME. (2020e). Idiomas de GNOME. https://l10n.gnome.org/languages/.
GNOME. (2020f). Outreachy/History. GNOME Wiki. https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreachy/History.
GNOME. (2020g). Release Notes. https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/.
GNOME. (2020h). The GNOME Foundation. https://www.gnome.org/foundation/.
GNOME Bugzilla. (s.f.) Report: Component/ Status. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=reports.html.
GNOME GitLab. (2020). Details. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME.
GNOME News (25 de mayo de 2018). Anonymous Donor Pledges $1M Donation Over Two Years. https://www.gnome.org/news/2018/05/anonymous-donor-pledges-1m-donation-over-two-years/.
GNOME News (25 de septiembre de 2019). GNOME Foundation facing lawsuit from Rothschild Patent Imaging. https://www.gnome.org/news/2019/09/gnome-foundation-facing-lawsuit-from-rothschild-patent-imaging/.
GNOME Wiki (2005). 10x10. Recuperado el 4 de marzo de 2020 de https://wiki.gnome.org/10x10.
GNOME Wiki (2020a). Development Infrastructure Evaluation. https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure.
GNOME Wiki (2020b). GNOME Code of Conduct. https://wiki.gnome.org/Foundation/CodeOfConduct.
González-Barahona, J. M., y Robles, G. (2013). Trends in free, libre, open source software communities: from volunteers to companies. it–Information Technology, 55(5), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1515/itit.2013.1012.
GTK Development Blog. (13 de febrero de 2020). GTK 3.98. https://blog.gtk.org/2020/02/13/gtk-3-98/.
Hess, C. y Ostrom, E. (Eds.) (2007). Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. MIT Press.
Hill, B. M. y Shaw, A. (2020). Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration? en J. R. Reagle y J. L. Koerner (Eds.), Wikipedia@20. Stories of an Incomplete Revolution. The MIT Press.
Jansen, S. (2020). A focus area maturity model for software ecosystem governance. Information and Software Technology, 118, 106219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.106219.
JSON.org (2002). The JSON License. https://www.json.org/license.html.
Koch, S., y Schneider, G. (2002). Effort, co‐operation and co‐ordination in an open source software project: GNOME. Information Systems Journal, 12(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.00110.x.
Larman, C., y Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental developments. a brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47-56.
Lund, A. y Zukerfeld, M. (2020). Corporate Capitalism’s Use of Openness: Profit for Free? Palgrave Macmillan.
Manikas, K. y Hansen, K. M. (2013). Software ecosystems – A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(5), 1294-1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.026.
Mcgovern, N. (18 de septiembre de 2019). GNOME relationship with GNU and the FSF. Liberal Murmurs. https://blog.halon.org.uk/2019/09/gnome-foundation-relationship-gnu-fsf/.
Mens, T. y Goeminne, M. (2011). Analysing the evolution of social aspects of open source software ecosystems en Jansen, Bosch, Ahmed, y Campell (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Software Ecosystems (pp. 1-14).
Motta, J., Morero, H. A. y Borrastero, C. (2019). Measuring Non Monetary Innovation In Software: a case study in floss firms from Argentina. International Journal of Innovation, 7(1), 135-154.
Muylinux. (14 de diciembre de 2009). ¿GNOME vs GNU?. https://www.muylinux.com/2009/12/14/gnome-vs-gnu/.
Muylinux. (5 de diciembre de 2011). Linus: «GNOME 3.2 es casi usable». https://www.muylinux.com/2011/12/05/linus-gnome-3-2-es-casi-usable/.
Muylinux. (4 de agosto de 2012). GNOME, a la deriva. https://www.muylinux.com/2012/08/04/gnome-a-la-deriva/.
Muylinux. (4 de abril de 2017). Ubuntu abandona movilidad, convergencia y a Unity: vuelve GNOME. https://www.muylinux.com/2017/04/05/ubuntu-convergencia-unity-gnome/.
Neary, D., y David, V. (2010). The GNOME census: Who writes GNOME?. https://tech-insider.org/linux/research/acrobat/100720.pdf.
NetMarketShare (2020). Operating System Market Share. https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx.
Nyman, L. y Lindman, J. (2013). Code Forking, Governance, and Sustainability in Open Source Software. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(1), 7-12. 10.22215/TIMREVIEW/644.
Open Hub. (2019). The GNOME Open Source Project on Open Hub: Estimated Cost Page. https://www.openhub.net/p/gnome/estimated_cost.
Peters S. (2009). Open Source Is Changing the Way Work Gets Done en C. Boldyreff, K. Crowston, B. Lundell y A. I. Wasserman (Eds.), Open Source Ecosystems: Diverse Communities Interacting. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02032-2_1.
Piller, F. y West, J. (2014). Firms, Users, and Innovation: An Interactive Model of Coupled Open Innovation en H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke y J. West (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682461.003.0002.
Raymond, E. (1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Knowledge, Technology y Policy, 12(3): 23-49.
Roberts, S., Snee, H., Hine, C., Morey, Y., y Watson, H. (Eds.). (2016). Digital methods for social science: An interdisciplinary guide to research innovation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schaarschmidt, M. (2012). Firms in open source software development: managing innovation beyond firm boundaries. Springer Science y Business Media.
Sistema operativo GNU. (s.f.). El manifiesto de GNU. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.es.html.
Statcounter Globalstats (2020). Desktop Operating System Market Share Worldwide. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/.
Teixeira, J. y Lin, T. (2014). Collaboration in the open-source arena: the webkit case. Proceedings of the 52nd ACM conference on Computers and people research, 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1145/2599990.2600009.
Teixeira, J. A., Mian, S. Q. y Hytti, U. (2016). Cooperation among competitors in the open-source arena: The case of OpenStack. [Documento de trabajo]. International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland.
The Commons Clause (2020). “Commons Clause” License Condition v1.0. https://commonsclause.com/.
The Linux Foundation (2020). About the Linux Foundation. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/.
Thomas, H. (2008). Estructuras cerradas vs. Procesos dinámicos: trayectorias y estilos de innovación y cambio tecnológico en H. Thomas y A. Buch, Actos, actores y artefactos. Sociología de la tecnología. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet. Oxford University Press.
Vallat, J. (2009) Intellectual Property and Legal Issues in Open Innovation in Services. OISPG, European Commission.
Vasilescu, B., Serebrenik, A., Goeminne, M. y Mens, T. (2014). On the variation and specialisation of workload—a case study of the Gnome ecosystem community. Empirical Software Engineering, 19(4), 955-1008. 10.1007/s10664-013-9244-1.
Vélez, J. G. y Zanotti, A. (2020). La producción en comunidades FLOSS: empresas, fundaciones y governance en H. Morero y J. Motta (Eds.), La economía del software libre y open source: Multinacionales, Pymes y Comunidades (pp. 55-75). Estudios Sociológicos.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press.
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. y Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805-811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.001.
Wheeler, D. A. (2017). The free-libre/open source software (FLOSS) license slide. https://dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html.
Zanotti, A. (2014). Comunidades de software libre en Argentina: motivaciones, participación, militancia. Perspectivas de la Comunicación, 7(2), 55-74.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 International Journal of Innovation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
The author(s) authorize the publication of the article in the journal.
The author(s) ensure that the contribution is original and unpublished and is not being evaluated in other journal(s).
The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts expressed in the texts because they are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
The publishers reserve the right to make adjustments and textual adaptation to the norms of APA.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
Authors are able to use ORCID is a system of identification for authors. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work properly attributed.
