Talk:Student Projects:OpenSource Motivation

Does "Incubator Motivations" cover incubators like sourceforge, companies like IBM, or non-profits like mozilla.org?

Richard Michaelson: I think this chapter should focus only on the private sector and not non-profits like mozilla.org.

I think "Developer Motivations" should become "Contributor Motivations".

Richard Michaelson: I'm fine with that, though Gail probably should decide.

Gail Rahn Frederick: I'm just reading this ... I have been wondering the same thing, actually. Let me see how it reads and if it reads nicely, I'll chang eit...

Do we want to squeeze "sources of funding for non-profits such as the Mozilla Foundation" into one of these topics?

Richard Michaelson: First, I think any discussion of Mozilla.org should fall under the government section (covering the public sector). Now to Jesse's question, I could see how it could come up in either the public and private chapters, and maybe even the developer/contributor chapter, BUT framed in a box and not part of the main body. In order to tie it to our paper (and thus include it as part of the main body), a pure description of funding sources would not be enough and must incorporate why someone would want to fund mozilla -- Why do private entities (individuals or firms) and public entities (the government, NGOs?) fund/invest in OS non-profits like Mozilla?

Policy Brief Organization

Richard Michaelson: Our brief likely will have 7 parts: the 4 chapters, an introduction, a conclusion, and an executive summary. Also, I suggest we incorporate boxes (with text) in our brief as a way to improve the brief's readability and allow discussion of related topics (e.g., actual interviews of Chinese government officials, or a detailed discussion of IBM, or sources of funding for mozilla, etc). This may also give us some flexibility in how we contribute to chapters with 2+ people, in that, one may work on the main body and the other work on more specific topics to be incorporated in a box.

Outline for public sector section

Ian King: I've been reading and grokking on this, and here's what I see as the outline.

Intro: Arguments have been made for OSS as low cost; counterarguments (e.g. Microsoft, quote case studies) state "total cost of ownership" mandates against this. Public sector entities, i.e. governments, seek to serve public at lowest cost (at least this is the American model). Is this the only factor? Review of literature suggests several other motivations for OSS adoption.

Subtopic on methodology: many entities have held conferences, etc. Introductory papers often "religious", but conclusions/proceedings much more balanced, reflective. Important to understand motivations of organizers vs. conferees. Even with significant "religious" populations, conference proceedings seem to be balanced and less inflammatory; nonetheless, good arguments for local adoption of OSS in support of local economy/culture.

Subintro: Motivations differ between entities.

Europe: strong government standards-setting; many socialist or neo-socialist governments; resentment of American dominance in market; some nationalist sentiment, i.e. they don't understand our needs.

Africa: low cost of entry important; many governments seek to bolster local IT talent pool; strong nationalist sentiment, not so much against America/Redmond but for local products, tying into local cultural standards; problems with localization not necessarily addressed by global interests; hardware resource constraints.

South America: similar to Africa.

Asia: still researching. A mixed bag, based in part on Asia's close ties to the American economy (IMHO).

Australasia: no strong OSS sentiments yet identified (beyond American-style OSS underground) - why? Still researching.

Richard Michaelson WIPO's seeming embracing of OSS might be relevant to your section. A link was posted in the discussion section of the OSS lecture. I looked at the link and, though it was interesting, didn't find it very helpful. But more research might lead to something interesting on why other public sector entities, like non-governmental organizations, specifically WIPO (IP arm of WTO), are increasingly looking at OSS as a favorable policy alternative.