The collaborative nature of produsage means that a project embarked upon in the open source world is never truly "finished". People are constantly improving and adding to something created in an open source format whereas in a commercial production there are a limited number of employees and budget to "finish" the product ready for sale. According to Shirky:
any commercial developer has a “resource horizon”—some upper boundary of money or programmer time which limits how much can be done on any given project. Projects which lie over this horizon either can’t be accomplished …, or, once started, can’t be completed because of their size or scope.
(quoted in Bruns, 2008, p. 38).
Many in the open source community are passionate about creating better products and content. The internet web browser Firefox is a great example of the advantages open source software as that has been developed to a point where it is the preferred browser for many users, over commercially produced browsers.
References:
Bruns, Axel. (2008). Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, Axel, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68
2 comments:
I have read through your blog and it seems you have addressed some reasons as to why people engage in produsage software. I would like to elaborate further into the rationale of participants of a produsage culture, specifically open source software. What are the motivations? From previous research, users that engage in the development of open source softwares such as Linux, find satisfaction by simply correcting necessary source code, developing and show casing skills (that may relate to work-related needs and career concerns) or generally perhaps towards contributing to the greater good of the community. Unlike closed source software, where the non-disclosure agreements and other IP protections cause the software to confidential, priced and core intellectual properties (keep in mind that I am not being negative about closed source software; only addressing that it does not have the same shared, collaborative concept that open source software has). Whatever the reason is, know that that open source software cannot be sold as a commercial product (because it’s free!), but that does not mean open source software can not bring in the moo-lah. By providing services based on the free software, users can become consultants, significant developers, Et.
Through the discussions about this open source systems as opposed to commercial production, I thought it appropriate to add my opinion on why open source can in fact benefit the software creator as well!
Open source has the ability, if still monitored to some extent by the producer, to give useful insight into what users want their systems to be able to achieve and in some cases, how to achieve it. Programmers may not have thought of a particular use for the IP, but an organisation could see the benefit of tweaking the software to a degree to give them what they need. This allows the original producer to see what the 'produser' has developed and perhaps utilise that in updates. Microsoft is just starting to undertake this process, which shows how useful it could potentially be. (I don't think Bill Gates does anything lightly!) As the previous comment states, open source can create revenue in this instance also, as producers learn to listen to their users and can thus create more beneficial products knowing that the demand in the market already exists. In implementing these processes and a greater use of open source work, although a completed, "retail-able" product is not being produced, an almost living and growing organism exists to benefit all parties involved.
Post a Comment