{"id":7863,"date":"2019-03-22T02:04:38","date_gmt":"2019-03-22T02:04:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=7863"},"modified":"2019-04-03T21:42:48","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T21:42:48","slug":"open-source-beyond-software","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-13-open\/peer-reviewed-papers\/open-source-beyond-software\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Source beyond software: Re-invent open design on the Common’s ground"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Kosmas Gavras<\/strong><\/p>\n

Download as PDF<\/a><\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/h2>\n

Open source software (OSS) has become a dominant mode of production in a number of areas such as server software, operating systems and scripting languages (Lerner and Tirole, 2005; Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007). Since the last decade, several studies have focused to a wider applicability (von Krogh and von Hippel, 2006; Nuvolari and Rullani, 2007) of the OSS organizational and production model (von Hippel and von Krogh, 2003; Osterloh and Rota, 2007). Benkler (2002, 2006) draws from OSS and early P2P sharing networks, to describe a third mode of production, the Commons based peer production (CBPP), extending beyond software to open content such as Wikipedia and Openstreetmap among others. Additionally, an equally important direction is the extension of the open source model to the world of tangible objects (Raasch et al., 2009; Balka et al., 2009a, 2009b; Shirky, 2005).<\/p>\n

Initially, a significant number of free and OSS theorists have objected to, or at least have been sceptical of, the openness parallelization between bits and atoms (Stallman, 1999; Raymond, 1999a; Maurer and Scotchmer, 2006; Ackermann, 2009). However, in the course of time the open source hardware\u2019s (OSH\u2019s) potential was realized, as among other advantages, the OSH will represent the only possibility to run freely OSS in the near future (Stallman, 2015). In the mean time a lot of major OSH projects have emerged. Indicatively, some of the most prominent approaches are located in the fields of: Electronics (Arduino), Mechanical (Farmhack, Ateliers Paysan, Open Source Ecology), Mechatronics (RepRap, OpenBionics), Non electronic – nor mechanical (Wikihouse, Opendesk, Openstructures, Open Architecture Network, Hexayurt).<\/p>\n

Von Hippel makes a parallelization between OSS and open design (OD) as the immaterial phase of OSH: ‘Hardware is becoming much more like software up to the point you actually fabricate an object.’<\/em> (Von Hippel in Thompson, 2008).<\/p>\n

Despite most of the OSH\u2019s theoretical background was transcribed from OSS\u2019s principles and licenses, the main theoretical stake persists. What is the ‘source code’ of OSH? The profound answer that design is the ‘source code’ of hardware is not solid and specific enough to establish an analytical framework (Vardouli and Buechley, 2014; Fuller and Haque, 2008). The purpose of the research is to provide a critical insight to existing OSH and OD theoretical definitions and describe potential new dimensions based on the following starting points:<\/p>\n