Open source and open content: A framework for global collaboration in social-ecological research

This paper discusses opportunities for alternative collaborative approaches for social- ecological research in general and, in this context, for modeling land-use/land-cover change. In this field, the rate of progress in academic research is steady but perhaps not as rapid or efficient as might be possible with alternative organizational frameworks. The convergence of four phenomena provides new opportunities for cross-organizational collaboration: (1) collaborative principles related to "open source" (OS) software development, (2) the emerging area of "open content" (OC) licensing, (3) the World Wide Web as a platform for scientific communication, and (4) the traditional concept of peer review. Although private individuals, government organizations, and even companies have shown interest in the OS paradigm as an alternative model for software development, it is less commonly recognized that this collaborative framework is a potential innovation of much greater proportions. In fact, it can guide the collective development of any intellectual content, not just software. This paper has two purposes. First, we describe OS and OC licensing, dispense with some myths about OS, and relate these structures to traditional scientific process. Second, we outline how these ideas can be applied in an area of collaborative research relevant to the study of social-ecological systems. It is important to recognize that the concept of OS is not new, but the idea of borrowing OS principles and using OC licensing for broader scientific collaboration is new. Over the last year, we have been trying to initiate such an OS/OC collaboration in the context of modeling land use and land cover. In doing so, we have identified some key issues that need to be considered, including project initiation, incentives of project participants, collaborative infrastructure, institutional design and governance, and project finance. OS/OC licensing is not a universal solution suitable for all projects, but the framework presented here does present tangible advantages over traditional methods of academic research.

[1]  Julie Esanu,et al.  Open Access and the Public Domain in Digital Data and Information for Science: Proceedings of an International Symposium , 2004 .

[2]  Justin P. Johnson,et al.  Economics of Open Source Software , 2001 .

[3]  J. Burnham The evolution of editorial peer review. , 1990, JAMA.

[4]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Open Source Development with CVS , 1999 .

[5]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Understanding open source software development , 2002 .

[6]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Creating an Intellectual Commons through Open Access , 2007 .

[7]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Why Open Source Software Can Succeed , 2003 .

[8]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm , 2001, ArXiv.

[9]  David Bollier,et al.  The Power of Openness Why Citizens, Education, Government and Business Should Care About the Coming Revolution in Open Source Code Software , 1999 .

[10]  P. Drucker,et al.  Beyond the information revolution , 1999 .

[11]  Charles M. Schweik FOSTERING OPEN-SOURCE RESEARCH VIA A WORLD WIDE WEB SYSTEM , 2002 .

[12]  James Boyle,et al.  The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain , 2003 .

[13]  Niels Jørgensen,et al.  Putting it all in the trunk: incremental software development in the FreeBSD open source project , 2001, Inf. Syst. J..

[14]  Paul Waddell,et al.  Introduction to Urban Simulation: Design and Development of Operational Models , 2004 .

[15]  Robin Miller,et al.  Embracing Insanity: Open Source Software Development , 2000 .

[16]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Public Goods and Public Choices , 2019, Alternatives for Delivering Public Services.

[17]  J. Ziman Information, Communication, Knowledge , 1969, Nature.

[18]  Adrian Johns The birth of scientific reading , 2001, Nature.

[19]  Rishab Aiyer Ghosh,et al.  The Orbiten Free Software Survey , 2000, First Monday.

[20]  Gary Stix,et al.  Some Rights Reserved , 2003 .

[21]  Steven Weber,et al.  The Success of Open Source , 2004 .

[22]  Séamas Kelly,et al.  Groupware and the Social Infrastructure of Communication , 2001, CACM.

[23]  Technical Electronic Scientific, Technical, and Medical Journal Publishing and Its Implications: Report of a Symposium , 2004 .

[24]  R. Hahn,et al.  Government Policy Toward Open Source Software , 2003 .

[25]  Line Dubé,et al.  Global Virtual Teams , 2001, CACM.

[26]  Ulf Asklund,et al.  A study of configuration management in open source software projects , 2002, IEE Proc. Softw..

[27]  Kieran Healy,et al.  The Ecology of Open-Source Software Development , 2003 .

[28]  Timothy Evans,et al.  A Review and Assessment of Land-Use Change Models Dynamics of Space, Time, and Human Choice , 2002 .

[29]  Charles M. Schweik,et al.  The Institutional Design of Open Source Programming: Implications for Addressing Complex Public Policy and Management Problems , 2003, First Monday.

[30]  Chris DiBona,et al.  Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution , 1999 .

[31]  MacKenzie Smith,et al.  DSpace: An Open Source Dynamic Digital Repository , 2003, D Lib Mag..

[32]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Towards a Portfolio of FLOSS Project Success Measures , 2004, ICSE 2004.

[33]  Sandeep Krishnamurthy,et al.  Cave or Community? An Empirical Examination of 100 Mature Open Source Projects , 2002, First Monday.

[34]  Eric S. Raymond,et al.  The cathedral and the bazaar , 1998, First Monday.

[35]  Paul Kavanagh,et al.  The Open Source Definition , 2004 .

[36]  Eric Monteiro,et al.  Open source processes: no place for politics? , 2003 .

[37]  Vijayan Sugumaran,et al.  A framework for creating hybrid‐open source software communities , 2002, Inf. Syst. J..

[38]  M. Goodchild,et al.  Environmental Modeling with GIS , 1994 .

[39]  Jeffrey A. Roberts,et al.  Why Do Developers Contribute to Open Source Projects ? First Evidence of Economic Incentives , 2002 .

[40]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Progress in integrated assessment and modelling , 2002, Environ. Model. Softw..

[41]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Defining Open Source Software Project Success , 2003, ICIS.

[42]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[43]  T. J. Halloran William L. Scherlis Beyond Code: Content Management and the Open Source Development Portal (Position Paper) , 2003 .

[44]  E. Ostrom,et al.  The Struggle to Govern the Commons , 2003, Science.

[45]  R. W. Lucky,et al.  Free software [Reflections] , 1999 .

[46]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Modeling as Negotiating: The Political Dynamics of Computer Models in the Policy Process , 1985 .

[47]  Hal Berghel Digital village: a cyberpublishing manifesto , 2001, CACM.

[48]  Roy T. Fielding,et al.  Shared leadership in the Apache project , 1999, CACM.

[49]  Richard M. Stallman The free universal encyclopedia and learning resource , 2000 .

[50]  K. Kraemer,et al.  Models, Facts, and the Policy Process: The Political Ecology of Estimated Truth , 1993 .

[51]  Kouichi Kishida,et al.  Evolution patterns of open-source software systems and communities , 2002, IWPSE '02.

[52]  Alan Borning,et al.  An extensible, modular architecture for simulating urban development, transportation, and environmental impacts , 2001, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[53]  Ilkka Tuomi Evolution of the Linux Credits file: Methodological challenges and reference data for Open Source research , 2004, First Monday.

[54]  E. Lambin,et al.  Dynamics of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in Tropical Regions , 2003 .

[55]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  Lessons from open-source software development , 1999, CACM.

[56]  D. Kronick Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. , 1990, JAMA.

[57]  R. Hinde,et al.  The Possibility of Cooperation@@@Cooperation: The Basis of Sociability.@@@Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior.@@@Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. , 1990 .

[58]  Audris Mockus,et al.  A case study of open source software development: the Apache server , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium.

[59]  Tony Cornford,et al.  Version management tools: CVS to BK in the Linux kernel , 2003 .

[60]  E. Lambin,et al.  Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation , 2002 .

[61]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel , 2003 .

[62]  Nikolai Bezroukov,et al.  A Second Look at the Cathedral and the Bazaar , 1999, First Monday.

[63]  Charles M. Schweik,et al.  An Institutional Analysis Approach to Studying Libre Software “Commons”. , 2005 .

[64]  K. J. Stewart,et al.  OSS project success: from internal dynamics to external impact , 2004, ICSE 2004.

[65]  R. Ghosh Cooking pot markets: an economic model for the trade in free goods and services on the Internet , 1998, First Monday.

[66]  P. Waddell UrbanSim: Modeling Urban Development for Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Planning , 2002 .

[67]  Keith C. Clarke,et al.  Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling , 2001 .

[68]  Glyn Moody,et al.  Rebel Code: Linux and the Open Source Revolution , 2001 .

[69]  Robert L. Glass Of Open Source, Linux ... and Hype , 1999 .

[70]  Charles M. Schweik,et al.  Modeling human-environmental systems , 2002 .

[71]  Robert Gilmore Pontius,et al.  Useful techniques of validation for spatially explicit land-change models , 2004 .