The economics of vendor neutrality and vendor domination

Is open source really a public good? Or is it a common good?


Game theory applied to open source can be used to explain how participants profit from open source, but existing models work from the assumption that all contributors receive the same benefit from the decisions made. They do not. For example: Some may benefit more when software is faster, while others benefit when it is more configurable. It is often necessary to choose between the two.

What happens to the general social welfare captured and made available by an open source project when a narrow economic interest dominates its decision making?



Supported by