Governance of massive multiauthor collaboration - Linux, Wikipedia, and other networks: governed by bilateral contracts, partnerships, or something in between?

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Governance of massive multiauthor collaboration - Linux, Wikipedia, and other networks: governed by bilateral contracts, partnerships, or something in between?
Authors: Dan Wielsch [edit item]
Citation: JIPITEC 1 (2): . 2010 July.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: Define doi.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Governance of massive multiauthor collaboration - Linux, Wikipedia, and other networks: governed by bilateral contracts, partnerships, or something in between? is a publication by Dan Wielsch.


[edit] Abstract

Open collaborative projects are moving to the foreground of knowledge production. Some online user communities develop into longterm projects that generate a highly valuable and at the same time freely accessible output. Traditional copyright law that is organized around the idea of a single creative entity is not well equipped to accommodate the needs of these forms of collaboration. In order to enable a peculiar network-type of interaction participants instead draw on public licensing models that determine the freedoms to use individual contributions. With the help of these access rules the operational logic of the project can be implemented successfully. However, as the case of the Wikipedia {GFDL-CC} license transition demonstrates, the adaptation of access rules in networks to new circumstances raises collective action problems and suffers from pitfalls caused by the fact that public licensing is grounded in individual copyright. Legal governance of open collaboration projects is a largely unexplored field. The article argues that the license steward of a public license assumes the position of a fiduciary of the knowledge commons generated under the license regime. Ultimately, the governance of decentralized networks translates into a composite of organizational and contractual elements. It is concluded that the production of global knowledge commons relies on rules of transnational private law.

[edit] Research questions

"Legal governance of open collaboration projects is a largely unexplored field. The article argues that the license steward of a public license assumes the position of a fiduciary of the knowledge commons generated under the license regime. Ultimately, the governance of decentralized networks translates into a composite of organizational and contractual elements. It is concluded that the production of global knowledge commons relies on rules of transnational private law."

Research details

Topics: Legal infrastructure [edit item]
Domains: Law [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Case [edit item]
Theories: "Put in the words of property rights theory, the “authority

to select” the use of a resource which normally is restricted to the owner gets decentralized.14 This is the genius of copyleft: due to the fact that now many users can decide independently on the use of one and the same resource, the chances for its creative employment, for a follow-on invention, get multiplied. Unlike in a partnership that is constituted by multilateral contracts, in a network there is no explicit and enforceable obligation to promote a common purpose. This puzzles not just the law but also economic theory. 34 Some contend that participants benefit from “indirect appropriation.”35 In contrast, those who assume (under a Humean approach) that other-regarding preferences are fully capable of directly motivating people regard the existence of peer production rather as the result of a convention." [edit item]

Research design: Case study [edit item]
Data source: Documents [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: N/A [edit item]
Unit of analysis: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: N/A [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Not specified [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"In conclusion, at least in their present form, individual as well as collective legal concepts have difficulties grasping the special needs of open MMC projects to review their license regimes. Therefore, the network type of cooperation must receive adequate legal recognition. Anyway, it is worth noting that under both approaches a similar rationale seems to decide on the legitimacy of a relicensing. In conclusion, legal governance of MMC networks is a complex task. Governance of decentralized networks translates into a composite of organizational and contractual elements. The entity of the license steward represents a new actor at the transnational level that needs to be bound to principles of good organizational governance. However, the substantial standards that guide the exercise of his public function to shepherd the public license issued are to be taken from private law. Here the principles of transnational private law deserve special attention. Legal governance of MMC networks meets the idea of transnational private law – which in turn should open up to the peculiarities of social interaction in networks. The production of global knowledge commons is in need of a transnational law for networks."

[edit] Comments

"at least in their present form, individual as well as collective legal concepts have difficulties grasping the special needs of open MMC projects to review their license regimes."


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "Governance of massive multiauthor collaboration - Linux, Wikipedia, and other networks: governed by bilateral contracts, partnerships, or something in between?"RDF feed
AbstractOpen collaborative projects are moving to Open collaborative projects are moving to the foreground of knowledge production. Some online user communities develop into longterm projects that generate a highly valuable and at the same time freely accessible output. Traditional copyright law that is organized around the idea of a single creative entity is not well equipped to accommodate the needs of these forms of collaboration. In order to enable a peculiar network-type of interaction participants instead draw on public licensing models that determine the freedoms to use individual contributions. With the help of these access rules the operational logic of the project can be implemented successfully. However, as the case of the Wikipedia {GFDL-CC} license transition demonstrates, the adaptation of access rules in networks to new circumstances raises collective action problems and suffers from pitfalls caused by the fact that public licensing is grounded in individual copyright. Legal governance of open collaboration projects is a largely unexplored field. The article argues that the license steward of a public license assumes the position of a fiduciary of the knowledge commons generated under the license regime. Ultimately, the governance of decentralized networks translates into a composite of organizational and contractual elements. It is concluded that the production of global knowledge commons relies on rules of transnational private law.ies on rules of transnational private law.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionN/A +
Commentsat least in their present form, individual as well as collective legal concepts have difficulties grasping the special needs of open MMC projects to review their license regimes.
ConclusionIn conclusion, at least in their present fIn conclusion, at least in their present form, individual

as well as collective legal concepts have difficulties grasping the special needs of open MMC projects to review their license regimes. Therefore, the network type of cooperation must receive adequate legal recognition. Anyway, it is worth noting that under both approaches a similar rationale seems to decide on the legitimacy of a relicensing. In conclusion, legal governance of MMC networks is a complex task. Governance of decentralized networks translates into a composite of organizational and contractual elements. The entity of the license steward represents a new actor at the transnational level that needs to be bound to principles of good organizational governance. However, the substantial standards that guide the exercise of his public function to shepherd the public license issued are to be taken from private law. Here the principles of transnational private law deserve special attention. Legal governance of MMC networks meets the idea of transnational private law – which in turn should open up to the peculiarities of social interaction in networks. The production of global knowledge commons

is in need of a transnational law for networks.
need of a transnational law for networks.
Data sourceDocuments +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Governance%2Bof%2Bmassive%2Bmultiauthor%2Bcollaboration%2B-%2BLinux%2C%2BWikipedia%2C%2Band%2Bother%2Bnetworks%3A%2Bgoverned%2Bby%2Bbilateral%2Bcontracts%2C%2Bpartnerships%2C%2Bor%2Bsomething%2Bin%2Bbetween%3F%22 +
Has authorDan Wielsch +
Has domainLaw +
Has topicLegal infrastructure +
Issue2 +
MonthJuly +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inJIPITEC +
Research designCase study +
Research questionsLegal governance of open collaboration proLegal governance of open collaboration projects is a

largely unexplored field. The article argues that the license steward of a public license assumes the position of a fiduciary of the knowledge commons generated under the license regime. Ultimately, the governance of decentralized networks translates into a composite of organizational and contractual elements. It is concluded that the production of global knowledge commons relies on rules of transnational private law.ies on rules of transnational

private law.
Revid10,794 +
TheoriesPut in the words of property rights theoryPut in the words of property rights theory, the “authority

to select” the use of a resource which normally is restricted to the owner gets decentralized.14 This is the genius of copyleft: due to the fact that now many users can decide independently on the use of one and the same resource, the chances for its creative employment, for a follow-on invention, get multiplied. Unlike in a partnership that is constituted by multilateral contracts, in a network there is no explicit and enforceable obligation to promote a common purpose. This puzzles not just the law but also economic theory. 34 Some contend that participants benefit from “indirect appropriation.”35 In contrast, those who assume (under a Humean approach) that other-regarding preferences are fully capable of directly motivating people regard the existence of peer production rather as the result of a convention.tion

rather as the result of a convention.
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleGovernance of massive multiauthor collaboration - Linux, Wikipedia, and other networks: governed by bilateral contracts, partnerships, or something in between?
Unit of analysisN/A +
Urlhttps://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-1-2-2010/2618/JIPITEC%202%20-%20Wielsch-Governance.pdf +
Volume1 +
Wikipedia coverageCase +
Wikipedia data extractionN/A +
Wikipedia languageNot specified +
Wikipedia page typeN/A +
Year2010 +