CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 281Open Source Software InnovationsDigital Platforms and EconomicsIntellectual Property and Patents

Open source software development—Just another case of collective invention?

Open access
Osterloh, Margit, Rota, Sandra·2007·Research Policy
DOI 10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.004

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When considered, the open source movement is described as an alternative mode of innovation production, which may also be complementary to traditional ones.

    “When considered, the open source movement is described as an alternative mode of innovation production, which may also be complementary to traditional ones (Benner & Tushman, 2015; Osterloh & Rota, 2007).”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Osterloh & Rota, 2007

    Section 2 describes open source as a successful innovation model that challenges conventional approaches and combines features of private-investment and collective-action models. The passages do not establish the separate claim that open source may complement traditional modes of innovation production. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Bessen, J. 2002. What good is free software? R. W. Hahn (ed.) Government policy toward open source software. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 12-33.
  2. Brooks, F. P. 1975. The Mythical Man-Month. Essays on Software Engineering. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
  3. Deci, E. L., R. Koestner, R. M. Ryan. 1999. Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments: Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125(3) 627-668.
  4. Frey, B. S., S. Meier. Forthcoming. Social comparisons and Pro-social Behavior. Testing "Conditional Cooperation" in a Field Experiment. American Economic Review.
  5. Frey, B. S., M. Osterloh. 2002. Successful management by motivation. Balancing intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  6. Kirchgässner, G. 1992. Toward a theory of low-cost-decision. European Journal of Political Economy 8(2) 305-320.
  7. Levi, M. 1988. Of rule and revenue. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  8. Loebbecke, C., P. Fenema, P. Powell. 1998. Knowledge Transfer under Co-opetition. T. Larsen, L. Levine, J. De Gross (eds.). Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes. Laxenburg, Austria. 215-229.
  9. Markus, M. L., B. Manville, C. E. Agres. 2000. What makes a virtual organization work? Sloan Management Review 42(1) 13-26.
  10. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
  11. O'Reilly and Associates Inc. 1999. Open Source: kurz und gut. O'Reilly and Associates, Köln.
  12. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
  13. Parnas, D. L. 1972. On the criteria for decomposing systems into modules. Communication of the ACM 15(12) 1053-1058.
  14. Sen, A. K. 1974. Choice, orderings and morality. S. Körner (ed.). Practical reason: Papers and discussions. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
  15. C. Dibona, S. Ockman, M. Stone (eds.). Open sources: voices from the open source revolution. O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA.
  16. Tajfel, H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Tyler, T.R., S. L. Blader. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Hove Psychology Press.
  18. Von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
  19. Von Hippel, E. 2001. Innovation by user communities: Learning from open source software. Sloan Management Review 42(4) 82-86.
  20. M. A. Smith, P. Kollock (eds.). Communities in cyberspace. Routledge, New York, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Osterloh, M., & Rota, S.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Osterloh, Margit
ORCID
Osterloh, Margit
Venue
Research Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-03
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
157-171
ISSN
0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.respol.2006.10.004
OpenAlex
W3121570764
Cited by
281
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 26
FWCI
53.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Research Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Intellectual Property and Patents
Keywords
open source software, collective invention, innovation models, institutional innovation, common property, dominant design, patent law, developer communities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review