CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 41Open Source Software InnovationsPolitical Economy and MarxismDigital Economy and Work Transformation

Free software production as critical social practice

Open access
Barron, Anne·2013·Economy and Society
DOI 10.1080/03085147.2013.791510
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper analyses the phenomenon of free and open source software (FOSS) in the light of Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello's The new spirit of capitalism. It argues that collaborative FOSS production by volunteer software developers is a species of critical social practice in Boltanski and Chiapello's sense: rooted in resistance to capitalist social relations, and yet also a source of values that justify the new routes to profitability associated with contemporary network capitalism. Advanced via collective projects that are sustained by hacker norms and privately legislated ‘copyleft’ law, the FOSS ethos is apparently antithetical to private property-based accumulation. Yet it can be shown to embody the ‘new spirit of capitalism’ in its most distilled form; moreover FOSS developers have instituted new forms of property and new modes of profit creation around software that are in the process of being adapted for use in other economic sectors. Meanwhile, the private law constraints on profit-seeking that have emerged from the FOSS movement are counteracting some of the social pathologies that accompany network capitalism only to consolidate others. The paper concludes by identifying likely bases for a renewal of critique given these realities.

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 · 10.1080/03085147.2013.791510

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The ideas of open source may be subverted by certain organisations to capture free labour in exchange for the promise of positive market signals of worth.

    “the ideas of open source may be subverted by certain organisations to capture free labour in exchange for the promise of positive market signals of worth (Hann et al., 2013)”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Barron (2013)

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: 72

  1. Arvidsson, A., & Colleoni, E. (2012). Value in informational capitalism and on the internet. The Information Society, 28(3), 135-150.
  2. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K.B. (2006). The architecture of participation: does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Science, 52(7), 1116-1127.
  3. Barron, A. (2012). Kant, copyright and communicative freedom. Law and Philosophy, 31(1), 1-48.
  4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  5. Berdou, E. (2011). Organization in open source communities: At the crossroads of the gift and market economies. London: Routledge.
  6. Burston, J., Dyer-Witheford, N., & Hearn, A. (Eds.). (2010). Digital labour: Workers, authors, citizens [Special issue]. Ephemera, 10(3/4), www.ephemeraweb.org
  7. In F. Webster, (Ed.), The Information Society Reader (pp.150-164). London: Routledge.
  8. Chopra, S., & Dexter, S. (2008). Decoding liberation: The promise of free and open source software. London: Routledge.
  9. Cohen, G.A. (1978). Karl Marx's theory of history -a defence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  10. Coleman, E.G. (2013). Coding freedom: The ethics and aesthetics of hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  11. Dafermos, G. (2012). Authority in peer production: The emergence of governance in the FreeBSD Project. Journal of Peer Production, 1(1), http://peerproduction.net
  12. Dahlander, L., & Wallin, M.W. (2006). A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy, 35(8), 1243-1259.
  13. Dusollier, S. (2007). Sharing access to intellectual property through private ordering. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82, 1391-1435.
  14. Dyer-Witheford, N. (2005). Cyber-Negri: General intellect and immaterial labor. In T. S. Murphy & A.-K. Mustapha, (Eds.), The Philosophy of Antonio Negri (pp.136-162). London: Pluto Press.
  15. Elkin-Koren, N. (2005). What contracts can't do: The limits of private ordering in facilitating a Creative Commons. Fordham Law Review, 74, 375-422.
  16. Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hissam, S.A. & Lakhani, K.R. (Eds.). (2005). Perspectives on open source and free software. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. Fleming, P. (2009). Authenticity and the cultural politics of work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Fisk, C. L. (2006). Credit where it's due: The law and norms of attribution. Georgetown Law Journal, 95, 49-117.
  19. Fosfuri, A., Girratana, M.S., & Luzzi, A. (2008). The penguin has entered the building: The commercialization of open source software projects. Organization Science, 19(2), 292-305.
  20. Gambardella, A., & Hall, B.H. (2006). Proprietary vs. public domain licensing of software and research products. Research Policy, 35(6), 875-892.
  21. Gill, R., & Pratt, A. (2008). In the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(7-8), 1-30.
  22. Giuri, P., Rullani, F., & Torrisi, S. (2008). Explaining leadership in virtual teams: The case of open source software. Information Economics and Policy, 20(4), 305-315.
  23. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2001). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2006) Multitude. London: Penguin.
  25. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2009) Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Hass, D. A. (2007). A gentlemen's agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License and its adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 6, 213
  27. Hearn, A. (2008). 'Meat, mask, burden': Probing the contours of the branded 'self'. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 197-217.
  28. Heller, M. A. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Review, 111, 621-688.
  29. Hemnes, T.M.S. (2004). Restraints on alienation, equitable servitudes, and the feudal nature of computer software licensing. Denver University Law Review, 71, 577-606.
  30. Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953-969.
  31. Judge, E., & Gervais, D. (2010). Of silos and constellations: Comparing notions of originality in copyright law. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Review, 27(2), 375-408.
  32. Kelty, C. M. (2008). Two bits: The cultural significance of open source. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  33. Lair, D., Sullivan, K., & Cheney, G., (2005). Marketization and the recasting of the professional self. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(3), 307-343.
  34. Lerner, J., & Schankerman, M. (2010). The comingled code: Open source and economic development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  35. Loren, L.P. (2007). Building a reliable semicommons of creative works. George Mason Law Review, 14(2), 271-328.
  36. Lury, C. (1993). Cultural rights: Technology, legality and personality. London: Routledge.
  37. Madison, M. J. (2004). Reconstructing the software license. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 35, 275-340.
  38. Marrella, F., & Yoo, C.S. (2007). Is open source software the new lex mercatoria?. Virginia Journal of International Law, 47, 807-837.
  39. Marres, N. & Lezaun, J. (2011). Materials and devices of the public: An introduction. Economy and Society, 40(4), 489-509.
  40. McGowan, D. (2001). Legal implications of open-source software. University of Illinois Law Review 241-304.
  41. Moody, G. (2001). Rebel code: Linux and the open source revolution. London: Penguin.
  42. Nadan, C. H. (2002). Open source licensing: Virus or virtue? Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 10, 349
  43. Narodick, B. I. (2010). Smothered by judicial love: How Jacobsen v. Katzer could bring open source software development to a standstill. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 16, 264-293.
  44. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Hackers and the contested ontology of cyberspace. New Media & Society, 6(2), 195-217.
  45. O'Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons: How community managed software projects protect their work. Research Policy, 32(7), 1179-1198.
  46. O'Mahony, S. (2005). Non-profit foundations and their role in community-firm software collaboration. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S.A. Hissam, & K.R. Lakhani (Eds.). Perspectives on open source and free software. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  47. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Radin, M.J. (2000). Humans, computers, and binding commitment. Indiana Law Journal, 75, 1125-1162.
  49. Raymond, E. S. (2001b). The cathedral and the bazaar. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
  50. Roberts, J. A., Hann, I-H., & Slaughter, S. (2006). Understanding the motivations, participation and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Science, 52(7), 984-999.
  51. Scholz, T. (Ed.) (2013). Digital labour. New York: Routledge.
  52. Schweik, C. & English, R. (2012). Internet success: A study of open-source software commons. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
  53. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. London & New Haven: Yale University Press.
  54. Shah, S. K. (2006). Motivation, governance and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Science, 52(7), 1000-1014.
  55. Shapiro, K. (2004). The myth of the multitude. In P. A. Passavant & J. Dean, (Eds.), Empire's new clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri. London: Routledge.
  56. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: How change happens when people come together. London: Penguin.
  57. Söderberg, J. (2008). Hacking capitalism: The free and open source software movement. London: Routledge.
  58. Stallman, R. M. (2010). Free software, free society. (2 nd ed.) Boston, MA: Free Software Foundation.
  59. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D. (2008) Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. (2 nd ed.). London: Penguin.
  60. Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press.
  61. Teubner, G. (2004). Societal constitutionalism: Alternatives to state-centred constitutional theory? In C. Joerges, I.-J. Sand & G. Teubner, (Eds.), Constitutionalism and Transnational Governance. Oxford: Hart.
  62. Tirole, J., & Lerner, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 197-234.
  63. Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of innovation: Change and meaning in the age of the internet. New York: Oxford University Press.
  64. Van Dijk, J. (1999). The one-dimensional network society of Manuel Castells. New Media and Society, 1(1), 127-138.
  65. Von Hippel, E. & von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the 'private- collective' innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209-223.
  66. Van Houweling, M.S. (2008). The new servitudes. Georgetown Law Journal, 96, 885- 950.
  67. Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  68. Williams, S. (2002). Free as in freedom: Richard Stallman's crusade for free software. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
  69. Willmott, H. (2010). Creating value beyond the point of production: Branding, financialization and market capitalization. Organization, 17(5), 517-42.
  70. Young, R. (1999). Giving it away: How Red Hat Software stumbled across a new economic model and helped improve an industry. In C. DiBona, S. Ockman & M. Stone (Eds.). Open sources: Voices from the open source revolution. London: O'Reilly & Associates.
  71. Zhu, C.W. (in press). 'Copyleft' reconsidered: Why software licensing jurisprudence needs insights from relational contract theory. Social & Legal Studies
  72. Zwick, D., Bonsu, S.K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting consumers to work: 'Co- creation' and new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 163-196.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barron, A.
Affiliations
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
Barron, Anne
Venue
Economy and Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-09-09
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
597-625
ISSN
  • 0308-5147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5766
DOI
10.1080/03085147.2013.791510
OpenAlex
W2273603903
Cited by
41
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Economy and Society (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
Keywords
free and open source software, Luc Boltanski, Eve Chiapello, network capitalism, copyleft, resistance to capitalism, private property, group projects, critique of capitalism

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