CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Open Source Software InnovationsDigital Platforms and EconomicsSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Why develop open-source software? The role of non-pecuniary benefits, monetary rewards, and open-source licence type

Open access
Sauer, R. M.·2007·Oxford Review of Economic Policy
DOI 10.1093/oxrep/grm034
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A review of the basic theory of optimal open-source software contributions points to three key factors affecting the decision to contribute to the open-source development process: non-pecuniary benefits, future expected monetary returns, and open-source licence type. This paper argues that existing large-scale software developer surveys are inadequate for measuring the relative importance of these three factors. Previous econometric studies that collect their own unique datasets also fall short because they generally measure the importance of only one supply factor in isolation. To fill the gap, I specify an estimable dynamic programming model of joint labour supply and open-source participation decisions that can provide empirical estimates of relative importance within a single unified framework of optimal decision-making.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper reviews theory and econometric evidence on why developers contribute to open source, arguing that non-pecuniary benefits, expected future monetary returns, and open-source licence type are key but existing surveys and studies cannot measure their relative importance. It proposes a dynamic programming model of joint employment and open-source participation decisions to estimate all three factors in one framework.

Key findings

  • Three key supply factors are identified: non-pecuniary benefits, future expected monetary returns, and open-source licence type; prior econometric work generally examines monetary rewards and licence type in isolation, and no study empirically identifies non-pecuniary benefits.
  • FLOSS-EU survey data (text says 2,784 respondents; Table 1 labels N=2718) show motivations: 78.9% joined to learn/develop new skills, 49.8% to share knowledge/skills, 23.9% to improve job opportunities, 9.1% for reputation, and 4.4% to make money; 46.3% report not earning money from OS/FS, while more than half report some monetary reward.
  • Prior evidence reviewed: Hann et al. (147 Apache contributors) find little return to volume of contributions but higher ASF rank raises wages by 13–27%, interpreted as signaling/sorting stronger than human capital/learning; Lerner and Tirole (SourceForge, ~40,000 projects) find restrictive GPL licences more prevalent for end-user projects and less prevalent for developer/commercial projects; Fershtman and Gandal (71 projects, nine observations over 18 months) find more restrictive licences induce more output per contributor.
  • The proposed model allows three employment states (non-employment, schooling, software developer) and three open-source participation states (none, non-GPL, GPL), with offer-arrival constraints, to estimate the relative importance of the three factors.

Methods

  • Design: literature review plus specification of a dynamic programming model of joint labour supply and open-source contribution decisions; no estimation is performed.
  • Data/sample: reviews the FLOSS-EU survey (text: 2,784 respondents; Table 1: N=2718) and prior econometric datasets: Hann et al. 147 Apache contributors; Lerner and Tirole SourceForge ~40,000 projects; Fershtman and Gandal panel of 71 projects observed nine times over 18 months.
  • Main analysis: conceptual/theoretical; Bellman equation, utility and wage functions, nonparametric unobserved types, and offer arrival probabilities; proposes structural estimation once suitable panel data become available.

Limitations

  • The paper states existing large-scale developer surveys are inadequate for measuring relative importance; they are cross-sectional, lack a non-participant control group, and only reach open-source participants.
  • The paper states prior econometric studies collect original datasets but generally measure only one supply factor in isolation; no study identifies non-pecuniary benefits.
  • The proposed model is not empirically implemented; the paper says it could be estimated when suitable panel data become available. Also evident from the text: no results from the model are presented.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxrep/grm034

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 30 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    Lerner and Tirole (2005b) found that restrictive licenses are significantly less prevalent among projects geared towards other software developers or commercial environments.

    “Also consistent with the basic theory of voluntary contributions is the finding that restrictive licenses are significantly less prevalent among projects geared towards other software developers or projects designed for operating in commercial environments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lerner and Tirole (2005b)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    In FLOSS-EU, 49% of respondents joined because they wanted to share existing knowledge and skills.

    “The next most frequent reason, accounting for 49% of respondents, was a desire to share already existing knowledge and skills.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gosh et al. (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    In FLOSS-EU, 79% of respondents joined the OS/FS community because they were interested in learning and developing new skills.

    “The table shows that 79% of the respondents joined the OS/FS community because they were interested in learning and developing new skills.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gosh et al. (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    More than half of FLOSS-EU developers earn money from their OS/FS activities.

    “The response frequencies reveal that more than half of the developers earn money from their OS/FS activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gosh et al. (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    Fershtman and Gandal (2007) found that protecting code under more restrictive licenses induces more output per contributor.

    “The results show that protecting code under more restrictive licenses induces more output per contributor.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fershtman and Gandal (2007)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 16
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    In FLOSS-EU, desires to improve job opportunities, gain reputation in the OS/FS community, and make money were less important but not negligible.

    “The desire to improve job opportunities, to get a reputation in the OS/FS community, and to make money are relatively less important, but are not negligible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gosh et al. (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Hann et al. (2004) found little return to the volume of open-source contributions, but achieving a higher rank in ASF significantly increases wages.

    “With standard panel data wage regressions that control for unobserved individual fixed effects -such as developer ability -the authors find that there is little return to the volume of contributions, but achieving a higher rank in ASF significantly increases”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hann et al. (2004)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Releasing a patch for free is the optimal choice and equilibrium outcome because it generates reciprocal giving and higher future returns.

    “Raymond (1999c) maintains that higher future returns are captured when the patch is released for free because it gives rise to reciprocal giving.”
    • Also stated in: § 2 The Basic Theory of Voluntary Software Contributions · plain
      “Hence, releasing the patch for free is the optimal choice for each developer, and is the equilibrium outcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raymond (1999c)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The main determinants of the supply of open-source software are still unknown.

    “In stark contrast to the demand side of the software market, the main determinants of the supply of open source software are still unknown.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Most open-source software developers are volunteers who supply their labour without pay.
    • Rests on an assumption: Many developers agree to have their contributions licensed in ways that make it difficult for them to profit directly from the resulting software.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Non-pecuniary benefits include status from gift-giving, ego-gratification or peer recognition, and ideological satisfaction.

    “For example, in Raymond (1999b) the open source community is conceived of as a gift culture in which a developer's status in that community depends on the quality of the software gift that he/she gives to others.”
    • Also stated in: § 2 The Basic Theory of Voluntary Software Contributions · plain
      “Non-pecuniary benefits can also come in the form of ideological satisfaction for those that believe software should be supplied free of charge or that Microsoft abuses its market position.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raymond (1999b)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The basic theory of optimal open-source contributions identifies three main supply factors: non-pecuniary benefits, expected future monetary returns, and open-source licence type.

    “A review of the basic theory of optimal open-source software contributions points to three key factors affecting supply: non-pecuniary benefits, future expected monetary returns, and opensource licence type.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
      “Previous research addressing this puzzle has pointed to non-pecuniary benefits, future monetary rewards and open source license type as the three key factors influencing the individual's decision to voluntarily contribute to open source development (see, e.g., Lerner and Tirole (2002)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lerner and Tirole (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    It is implausible that distribution costs of open-source participation are zero or negligible; regulatory burden can make releasing a patch costly.

    “While it seems plausible that higher non-pecuniary benefits and expected future monetary returns can be captured through choosing to voluntarily contribute, it is somewhat implausible to maintain that there are zero (or negligible) distribution costs to open source participation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raymond (1999c)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The proposed dynamic programming model of joint labour supply and open-source contribution decisions can estimate the relative importance of the three factors within one unified framework.

    “To fill the gap, I specify a dynamic programming model of joint labour supply and open-source contribution decisions that can provide empirical estimates of relative importance within a single unified framework.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
      “I propose a model of joint labour supply and open-source software contribution decisions that can be used to measure the relative influence of non-pecuniary benefits, future monetary rewards, and open-source licence type in a single model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    There is very little empirical evidence on the relative importance of non-pecuniary benefits, future monetary rewards, and licence type.

    “However, there is currently very little empirical evidence on the relative importance of these three supply factors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Projects for other developers or commercial environments likely have higher ego-gratification and/or signaling value and less need for a restrictive license.

    “These latter projects likely have a higher ego-gratification component and/or signaling value, and less of a need for a restrictive license.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    The model has three work states: jobless, post-secondary education, and full-time work as a software developer.

    “The three states in the employment choice set, denoted as K, are unemployment (k = 0), post-secondary schooling (k = 1) and full-time employment as a software developer (k = 2).”
    • Also stated in: § 5 Conclusion · plain
      “The model allows for three employment states (non-employment, schooling, and employment as a software developer) and three open-source participation states (no participation, participation in a project not licensed under GPL, and participation in a project licensed under GPL).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The significant effect of license type is consistent with an ideological and/or status/signaling motivation for open-source participation.

    “The authors conclude that the significant effect of license type is consistent with an ideological and/or status/signaling motivation to open source participation as hypothesized in the basic theory of voluntary contributions (see also Bonaccorsi and Rossi (2002)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fershtman and Gandal (2007)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bonaccorsi and Rossi (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    If network effects and switching costs are considerable, competition is low, the second-best software package may have only a tiny market share, and lost profits from releasing code are negligible.

    “On the other hand, as Lerner and Tirole (2005a) point out, if network effects and switching costs are considerable, then there will be little competition, the second-best software package may have only a tiny market share, and the loss in profits due to releasing the code will be negligible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lerner and Tirole (2005a)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    End-user applications may lack a strong ego-gratification component, so placing the project under a restrictive license may be the only way to substantially increase utility and induce participation.

    “Applications of this type may not have a strong ego-gratification component so that placing the project under a restrictive license may be the only way to substantially increase utility and induce participation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Placing a project under a restrictive licence such as GPL rather than BSD can satisfy ideological preferences, reduce fear of hijacking, and induce greater developer participation.

    “Placing the project under GPL, rather than BSD or some other less restrictive license, can help satisfy ideological preferences, reduce the fear of hijacking, and induce greater participation from the developer community.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The comparative weight of non-pecuniary gains, later monetary gains, and licence category can be estimated in this model with standard dynamic programming and structural estimation methods.

    “The relative importance of non-pecuniary benefits, future monetary rewards and open source license type can be empirically assessed in this model using the standard techniques of dynamic programming solution and structural estimation (see e.g., Keane and Wolpin (1994), Keane and Wolpin (1997) and Sauer (1998)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Keane and Wolpin (1994)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Keane and Wolpin (1997)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sauer (1998)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: Utility is linear in consumption and open-source participation status.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Open-source participation is constrained by the arrival of offers, with given probabilities, and at most one offer per period.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The wage function is a standard Mincerian wage function.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The paper puts forward an econometric framework able to gauge the comparative weight of non-pecuniary gains, monetary incentives, and licence category within one model.

    “In this section, we propose an econometric framework that can be used to identify the relative importance of non-pecuniary benefits, monetary rewards and open source license type in a single model of forward-looking optimal decision-making.”
    • Also stated in: § 5 Conclusion · hedged
      “In order to fill the gap in the literature, this paper proposes a dynamic programming model of open-source participation decisions that could provide empirical estimates of the relative importance of non-pecuniary benefits, monetary rewards and licence type within a single model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Some large companies have paid for open-source work and hired open-source programmers.

    “As a result of these potential benefits, several large firms have been known to directly fund open source projects and offer salaries to open source developers (see Berlecon Research (2002)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Berlecon Research (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Current developer surveys only reach software developers who participate in open-source projects, so a control group of non-participants is absent.

    “It is important to note that current developer surveys have additional drawbacks because they only reach software developers that participate in open source projects.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1 FLOSS-EU · plain
      “A control group of software developers that does not participate in open source projects is completely absent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Lerner and Tirole (2005b) study is limited to statistical correlations and cannot account for unobserved project characteristics, making causal effects doubtful.

    “Although the Lerner and Tirole (2005a) study yields interesting insights into the determinants of a project license, it is limited in that it remains at the level of establishing statistical correlations.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2 Econometric Studies · hedged
      “Data limitations prevent accounting for unobserved project characteristics that could confound the relationship between observed project characteristics and license choice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lerner and Tirole (2005b)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Those who do not take part may have no reason to signal ability to employers.

    “Non-participants may not need to signal their productivity to the market for developers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The form of FLOSS-EU questions and responses makes it difficult to use the data to generalize about key motivations.

    “The form of the questions and responses in Table 2 make it difficult to fruitfully use these data for generalizing about key motivations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Similar interpretational problems arise with other recent developer surveys.

    “A similar interpretational problem arises with the responses to other developer surveys that have recently been conducted (see, e.g., Boston Consulting Group (2003), Haruvy, Wu and Chakravarty (2003), Lakhani and von Hippel (2003) and Lakhani and Wolf (2005)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Boston Consulting Group (2003)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Haruvy, Wu and Chakravarty (2003)

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Lakhani and von Hippel (2003)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Two error terms suffice to give every work state a positive choice probability, so unemployment returns need not be modelled as random.

    “A non-zero choice probability for each of the three employment states can be generated with only two error terms.Therefore, it is not strictly necessary to specify the returns to unemployment to be stochastic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Utility is linear in consumption and open-source participation status.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Open-source participation is constrained by the arrival of offers, with given probabilities, and at most one offer per period.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The model treats schooling, work, and open-source involvement as decided together and with an eye to the future.

    “It is important to note that the model in equations (1)-(7) explicitly recognizes that education, employment and open source participation choices are jointly determined as well as forward-looking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Variation in organizational structure and associated distribution costs may be critical parameters in the developer's optimization problem and in an open-source product's market share.

    “Thus, variation in organizational structure and associated costs of distribution may be critical parameters in the open source developer's optimization problem, and in the eventual market share of an open source product.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raymond (1999c)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If lines-of-code contributed does not accurately measure true open-source experience, the coefficient on experience may be biased by measurement error, including attenuation bias.

    “Note that if open source experience, measured as lines-of-code contributed, does not accurately measure true experience then there may also be a bias in the coefficient on experience due to measurement error.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2 Econometric Studies · hedged
      “That is, attenuation bias is another possibility why low estimated returns to open source experience were obtained.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The coefficient on ASF rank may partially absorb returns to open-source experience and should not be strictly interpreted as a return to signaling or sorting.

    “Therefore, the coefficient on rank may be partially absorbing the returns to open source experience.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.2 Econometric Studies · plain
      “It should not be strictly interpreted as a return to signaling/sorting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The model distinguishes parameters tied to present non-pecuniary gains from those tied to later monetary gains.

    “Moreover, the model makes it clear which parameters are associated with current non-pecuniary benefits to open source participation, and which parameters are associated with future monetary rewards.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Utility is linear in consumption and open-source participation status.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The model has three open-source involvement states: none, involvement in a project with a non-GPL licence, and involvement in a GPL-only project.

    “The three open source project participation states, denoted as L, are specified as no open source project participation (l = 0), participation in a project licensed under BSD or other licenses less restrictive than GPL (l = 1), and participation in a project in which all licenses are GPL (l = 2).”
    • Also stated in: § 5 Conclusion · plain
      “The model allows for three employment states (non-employment, schooling, and employment as a software developer) and three open-source participation states (no participation, participation in a project not licensed under GPL, and participation in a project licensed under GPL).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Within the model, each period a developer selects both a work state and an open-source involvement state, subject to receiving job and project offers.

    “Because the developer chooses both an employment state k and a project participation state l in each time period t, the dimension of the choice set in each period is K * L. However, the choice set is constrained by the receipt of job offers and open source project offers to be specified below.”
    • Also stated in: § 5 Conclusion · plain
      “In the model, developers choose an employment state and a project participation state in each period but are constrained by the arrival of employment and project participation offers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is not obvious how to map FLOSS-EU responses into metrics that disentangle the relative importance of non-pecuniary benefits, future monetary rewards, and licence type.

    “However, it is not obvious how one could map these responses into metrics that would enable a researcher to disentangle the relative importance of non-pecuniary benefits, future monetary rewards and open source license type.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The model spells out how licence category affects the choice to join an open-source project.

    “In addition, the influence of open source license type in the decision to participate in an open source project is made explicit.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Utility is linear in consumption and open-source participation status.
33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most open-source software developers are volunteers who supply their labour without pay.

    “The central puzzle is that most open source software developers are volunteers that supply their labor for free”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many developers agree to have their contributions licensed in ways that make it difficult for them to profit directly from the resulting software.

    “and many developers agree to have their contributions licensed in such a way that it is difficult for them to directly profit from the resulting software product.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the patch example, the developer originally wrote the patch for personal use of the program.

    “Assume that the developer was originally motivated to write the patch for his own personal use of the program.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the patch example, there is very high uncertainty about the patch's value to other developers or consumers, so no positive price exists at which others would buy it.

    “In addition, assume that there is a very high degree of uncertainty regarding the value of the patch to other software developers/consumers so that there is no non-zero price at which others are willing to buy it.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Distribution costs are zero.

    “(assuming zero costs of distribution)”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There are differential expected future returns between keeping the patch private and releasing it for free.

    “can be broken by assuming that there are differential expected future returns between the two options.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the firm example, the internally developed software is an intermediate good in the firm's production process.

    “suppose the internally developed software is an intermediate good in the firm's production process, e.g., an accounting package.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The initial development costs for the firm's code are sunk.

    “The initial development costs are sunk.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Utility is linear in consumption and open-source participation status.

    “For simplicity, U it in (2) is assumed to be a linear function of consumption and open source participation status”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Open-source participation is constrained by the arrival of offers, with given probabilities, and at most one offer per period.

    “It is assumed that only one open source project offer, if any, arrives in each period t.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Each period's consumption must satisfy a budget constraint.

    “Consumption in each period t is determined by a budget constraint that is assumed to be satisfied in each period”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Accumulated open-source experience increases by one year regardless of licence type.

    “Accumulated open source experience is augmented by one year regardless of open source project license type.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The wage function is a standard Mincerian wage function.

    “Assuming a standard Mincerian wage function, w it can be written as,”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    A wage offer can only arrive after a job offer.

    “An additional constraint imposed on the maximization problem is that a developer must receive a job offer prior to receiving a wage offer determined by (7).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The productivity shock is i.i.d. and serially uncorrelated.

    “ε i2t is a productivity shock assumed to be i.i.d. and serially uncorrelated.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Open-source participation carries the same cost under every licence.

    “The parameter c is the consumption cost of open source project participation which is restricted to be the same regardless of open source license type.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Open-source project arrival rates reflect prior licensing decisions by project initiators and are taken as given by the individual developer.

    “The open source project arrival rates reflect prior licensing decisions by project initiators and are taken as given by the individual developer.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The developer maximizes expected present discounted value of remaining lifetime utility.

    “The objective of the software developer is to choose an employment and project participation state in each time t to maximize the expected present discounted value of remaining lifetime utility.”
18 of 18

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • License-choice study attributed to two different papers

    Minor

    The discussion identifies Lerner and Tirole (2005b) as the study of license-choice determinants, then calls the same study Lerner and Tirole (2005a).

  • Wrong equation cited for the omitted base type

    Minor

    The base-type dummy A 0i is omitted from the equation defining α i, which is numbered (6). Equation (5) instead gives the laws of motion for experience.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sauer, R. M.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Sauer, R. M.
Venue
Oxford Review of Economic Policy
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2007-12-01
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
605-619
ISSN
  • 0266-903X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2121
DOI
10.1093/oxrep/grm034
OpenAlex
W2115478646
Semantic Scholar
cd537940a601ea37b3b97e67f5e985d9ab276490
Cited by
25
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Oxford Review of Economic Policy (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
open source software, non-monetary benefits, monetary rewards, developer engagement, labor supply, dynamic programming model

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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