In the networked information and knowledge-based economy and society, the notions of ‘open’ and ‘openness’ are used in a variety of contexts; open source, open access, open economy, open government, open innovation – just to name a few.
This paper aims at discussing openness and developing a taxonomy that may be used to analyse the concept of openness. Are there different qualities of openness? How are these qualities interrelated?
What analytical tools may be used to understand openness? In this paper four qualities of openness recurrent in literature and debate are explored: accessibility, transparency, participation and sharing. To further analyse openness new institutional theory as interpreted by Williamson (2000) is used, encompassing four different institutional levels; cultural embeddedness, institutional environment, governance structure and resource allocations.
At what institutional levels is openness supported and/or constrained? Accessibility as a quality of openness seems to have a particularly strong relation to the other qualities of openness, whereas the notions of sharing and collaborative economics seem to be the most complex and contested quality of openness in the knowledge-based economy.
This research contributes to academia, policy and governance, as handling of challenges with regard to openness vs. closure in different contexts, territorial, institutional and/or organizational, demand not only a better understanding of the concept, but also tools for analysis.
Cet article aborde les formes de contrôle des biens communs par des entreprises commerciales en étudiant le cas des logiciels libres. Les logiciels libres sont des logiciels dont le code source est librement accessible, et peut être modifié et partagé.
Cette éthique de partage a permis l’émergence d’un modèle collaboratif souvent présenté comme l’exemple type des « communs numériques ». Cependant, de plus en plus d’entreprises participent aujourd’hui au développement des logiciels libres.
Si plusieurs analystes voient d’un bon œil cette contribution commerciale, d’autres font ressortir les formes de contrôle que ces entreprises mettent en place pour tirer profit des communs en logiciels libres.
En recensant différentes études sur ces questions et en analysant plus précisément les cas de Symfony et de Redhat, deux logiciels libres fortement développés par des entreprises commerciales, le présent article s’attarde sur ces formes de contrôle des communs numériques et en fait ressortir les conséquences éthiques.
Authors : Erin C McKiernan, Philip E Bourne, C Titus Brown, Stuart Buck, Amye Kenall, Jennifer Lin, Damon McDougall, Brian A Nosek, Karthik Ram, Courtney K Soderberg, Jeffrey R Spies, Kaitlin Thaney, Andrew Updegrove, Kara H Woo, Tal Yarkoni
Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved.One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers.
We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.
Open source. Open access. Open society. Open knowledge. Open government. Even open food. The word “open” has been applied to a wide variety of words to create new terms, some of which make sense, and some not so much.
This essay disambiguates the many meanings of the word “open” as it is used in a wide range of contexts.
‘Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice’ brings together authors and researchers in the field of open-source archaeology, defined as encompassing the ethical imperative for open public access to the results of publicly-funded research; practical solutions to open-data projects; open-source software applications in archaeology; public information sharing projects in archaeology; open-GIS; and the open-context system of data management and sharing.
This edited volume is designed to discuss important issues around open access to data and software in academic and commercial archaeology, as well as to summarise both the current state of theoretical engagement, and technological development in the field of open-archaeology.
Open access, open data, open source, and other open scholarship practices are growing in necessity and popularity, rapidly becoming part of the integral workflow of researchers. However, widespread adoption of many of these practices has not yet been achieved. Understandably, researchers have concerns as to how sharing their work will affect their careers. Some of these concerns stem from a lack of awareness about the career benefits associated with open research.
Herein, we review literature on the open citation advantage, media attention for publicly available research, collaborative possibilities, and special funding opportunities to show how open practices can give researchers a competitive advantage.
« Libraries share a number of core values with the Open Source Software (OSS) movement, suggesting there should be a natural tendency toward library participation in OSS projects. However Dale Askey’s 2008 Code4Lib column entitled “We Love Open Source Software. No, You Can’t Have Our Code,” claims that while libraries are strong proponents of OSS, they are unlikely to actually contribute to OSS projects. He identifies, but does not empirically substantiate, six barriers that he believes contribute to this apparent inconsistency.
In this study we empirically investigate not only Askey’s central claim but also the six barriers he proposes. In contrast to Askey’s assertion, we find that initiation of and contribution to OSS projects are, in fact, common practices in libraries. However, we also find that these practices are far from ubiquitous; as Askey suggests, many libraries do have opportunities to initiate OSS projects, but choose not to do so. Further, we find support for only four of Askey’s six OSS barriers. Thus, our results confirm many, but not all, of Askey’s assertions. »