Open-Source Diffusion Using Government–Platform–User Evolutionary Game: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Tao Li
,
Junlin Zhu
,
Jianqiang Luo
,
Chaonan Yi
,
Baoqing Zhu

Technological innovations, including the Internet of Things (IoT) and machine learning, have facilitated the emergence of autonomous systems, promoting triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability. However, the prevalent triopoly of Android, iOS, and Windows introduces substantial obstacles for smart device manufacturers in pursuit of independent innovation. Utilizing evolutionary game theory,  the interplay among governments, platforms, and users in championing open-source diffusion can be scrutinized. 

  • open-source diffusion
  • sustainable smart digital infrastructure
  • open-source operating system

1. Introduction

With the rising complexity of contemporary smart city development and deteriorating environmental and economic sustainability, the triple bottom line (TBL), i.e., social, environmental, and economic sustainability, calls for the engagement of open innovation-style technologies [1]. Open source is an open innovation model in the digital era [2]. Open-source diffusion constitutes an information propagation paradigm, anchored on the tenets of unrestricted access, collective sharing, and amendment of source codes, knowledge, and information resources. Initially rooted in the field of computer software development, it encompasses not only the application of open-source software and open-source hardware, but also the sharing and utilization of open-source resources such as open-source data; it embodies a community-powered innovation model. The characteristics of open-source diffusion, such as openness, sharing, transparency, and customisability [3], fit with the idea of green AI aiming at efficient, sustainable and equitable development of smart cities and future technologies [4][5], and it can provide a supportive and facilitating mechanism for autonomous systems and smart digital sustainable implementations [6].
The development of open-source operating systems, as a crucial vehicle for open-source diffusion, contributes to the diversification of intelligent technologies and enables market freedom of choice [7][8][9][10]. In competition among open-source operating systems (Table 1), kernel update and optimization of an operating system is a core task of the open-source platform [11][12]. Kernel is the core of an open-source operating system, which controls the operation of computer hardware and provides services for applications. Open-source software includes the kernel of the open-source operating system, as well as other application programs, tools, and libraries, which constitute an open-source software ecosystem [13]. The source code of the operating system kernel is open for sharing [14], and people can use, modify, and disseminate it freely. Open-source operating systems have diverse brands and business models [15], and the license adopted also affects its development, distribution, and use [16].
Table 1. Open Source Operating System Competitive Landscape.
Brand Release Version Kernel License Description Area
Linux Ubuntu
Debian
CentOS
Red Hat		 Linux GPL/MIT One of the most popular open-source operating systems, widely used in servers, workstations and personal computers, with a large community of developers Global
Kylin NeoKylin
KylinOS		 Linux GPL/MIT Native Chinese operating system developed for China, mainly used by the Chinese government and for enterprise information construction. China
UOS UOS Desktop
UOS Server		 Linux GPL/MIT China’s self-developed enterprise-class operating system, designed to replace foreign operating systems and improve information security and autonomous control. China
FreeBSD FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD		 BSD BSD A Unix-like operating system, known for reliability, performance and security; it is widely used in servers, embedded, desktop systems and routers. Global
OpenSolaris Solaris Solaris CDDL Known for being the world’s most advanced file system and networking protocol, widely used in servers, desktop systems and virtualized environments, but discontinued by Oracle for maintenance. Global
Android Android Linux Apache A mobile device operating system with cell phones and tablets as the main target; based on Linux kernel and the open-source project AOSP development. Global
Chrome OS Chrome OS Linux Chromium Google’s operating system based on Linux kernel and the Chrome browser; mainly used for cloud computing and lightweight devices. Global
ReactOS ReactOS NT GPL Open source, Windows-compatible operating system designed to replace Windows and provide a high degree of compatibility and stability. Global
Sailfish OS Sailfish OS Linux MPL Open-source mobile operating system from Finland, supporting Android applications; it is known for security, privacy and personalization. Finland
Raspberry Pi OS Raspberry Pi OS Linux GPL/LGPL Debian-based operating system designed for Raspberry Pi; it is designed to provide a clean and fun environment for learning, exploration and innovation. U.K.
Fedora Fedora Linux GPL/MIT Community-driven, free Linux operating system designed to experiment with new technologies, improve the developer experience, and deliver the latest packages as an upstream version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Global
HarmonyOS HarmonyOS Microkernel Apache A distributed operating system independently developed by Huawei, it is designed to achieve cross-terminal multi-terminal collaborative operation, supporting smartphones, smart wear, car systems, etc. China
Currently, the Android–iOS–Windows triple oligarchy of operating systems needs to be broken [17][18], which not only reduces user dependency risks and introduces more competitors, igniting greater innovation vitality, but also holds significant importance in mitigating the risk of supply chain disruptions. In parallel, the lack of resources, developers or maintainers in the open source community, or unhealthy software industry structures and trade conflicts can lead to supply chain disruption risks for open-source operating system software. Therefore, intelligent device manufacturers have started actively developing their own open-source operating systems to counter the threat of proprietary software monopolies and technology disruptions, also adopting incentive mechanisms such as software policies [19], open data [20], infrastructure [21][22], talent cultivation [23], and global collaboration [21][22] to further promote open-source diffusion [24].
To mitigate the risks associated with the supply chain of the Android–iOS–Windows triple oligarchy, open-source platforms can endeavour to expand their user communities and attract more developers to participate. Additionally, governments can enhance regulations, incentivize maintenance efforts, and allocate public resources and funding to foster the diffusion of open-source technologies and contribute to the sustainability, fairness, and efficiency of smart digital technologies. Therefore, this research is grounded in the theory of open-source diffusion and utilizes an evolutionary game approach to investigate the evolving dynamics among three key stakeholders: open-source platforms, users, and governments, within the realm of open-source diffusion.

2. Open Source in Smart Digital Technologies

Smart digital technologies become common solutions to urban crises associated with the climate, epidemics, natural disasters, and socio-economic factors [25][26] concerning the triple bottom line (TBL), i.e., social, environmental, and economic sustainability [1]. Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a key element of smart cities [27][28], helping to improve efficiency and automation [29]. Such technology poses significant risks of privacy violations and disruption through opaque decision-making processes [30]. Emerging challenges, including massive data, heterogeneities, complex dependencies, distributed storage and computing, and data [31], are open issues that need to be confronted by smart digital technologies.
The triopoly shaped by Android–iOS–Windows has brought about a technological ecological monopoly, limiting competition and innovation [17], thus leading to a lack of diversity and flexibility in the development of smart digital technologies and smart cities [18] as well as restricting consumer choice and innovation [32]. Open-source operating systems, such as Debian 12 [33], Ubuntu 23 [34], and HarmonyOS 4 [34], and open-source software, such as PyTorch 2 [35] and SciPy 1 [36], promote technology sharing and cooperation, break monopolies, establish open technology platforms [37], build collaborative ecosystems, and cultivate an open innovation culture [38]. Thus, smart digital technologies and the sustainable development of smart cities complement open source and open innovation [39], and together they promote the sustainable development of society [40].
Open innovation and open source are intricately connected. As outlined by Chesbrough [41][42], at the heart of open innovation lies the pursuit of external innovation resources from both within and outside the organization in order to generate value [43], enhance the efficiency and quality of innovation [44], spur technological transformation [45], and drive business model innovation [46]. Additionally, it promotes international collaboration and knowledge sharing [47][48], facilitates the reconfiguration and optimization of intellectual property and industrial chains [49], and fosters the overall development of industries and economies [50][51]. By adopting the paradigm of open innovation, open source is an internet-based collaborative model that pools efforts of crowd intelligence through the open sharing of knowledge and technical resources [52] to improve efficiency and quality of innovation [53]; this advocates free, shared, and co-creation [3], and it effectively addresses technological inequities and privacy violations [54]. Open-source operating systems promote technological security [55], technological pluralism [56] and smart digital infrastructure [57]. Open source as public goods expanding business models, based on its tacit knowledge [58], can be the activation engine for innovative regional development [59][60] and smart technologies [4][40][61][62]. During the evolution of open source [63], attention concerning the ecosystem radiates from hardware and software to their developers, users, communities, platforms and other relevant organizations and government departments [64], achieving fast, flexible, and secure application development through collaborations [65].

3. Infrastructure Risk Mitigation

With the advancement of information technology and digital transformation, an increasing number of enterprises now rely on software operating systems, and the risk of software supply chain disruption has gradually received more attention [66]. The risk of software supply chain disruption typically includes software vulnerabilities and malicious code, supplier bankruptcy, cyberattacks, and global crises, resulting in major impacts on a company’s business operations and data security [67]. Enterprises need to take effective measures to manage the risks in software supply chain disruption [68], establish socio-technical frameworks [69], and reduce the impact of disruptions. Open source helps enterprises mitigate the risks of software supply chain disruption [70][71]. For instance, enterprises can use open-source software vulnerability scanners to scan for vulnerabilities in software systems and detect and repair potential issues in a timely manner [72]. Furthermore, enterprises can use open-source software supply chain security auditing tools to check source codes and assess whether security practices and processes of the suppliers comply with standards [73]. Long-term cooperation with software suppliers can also reduce the occurrence and impact of software supply chain disruption [74]. When seeking software suppliers, enterprises should focus on their reliability, technical capabilities, and security measures, establishing long-term cooperative relationships. Moreover, enterprises should work with software suppliers to explore novel security solutions, establish mutually trusted cooperative relationships, and jointly address the risk of software supply chain disruption [75].
Open source has the advantage of coping with the risk of software supply disruptions. However, open source does not reach a wide enough audience, and its low market share is major disadvantages [76][77]. Thus, the mechanism of open-source diffusion has become an urgent issue needing to be addressed.

4. Open-Source Diffusion

Joseph Schumpeter was the first scholar to discuss the issues of technological diffusion and product diffusion [78]. He believed technological diffusion was the process through which new technologies gradually spread from research centres to peripheral areas. In this process, the flow of technology from innovators to imitators was viewed as a kind of knowledge “penetration”, which promoted productivity growth. Rapid diffusion of technology could greatly accelerate economic growth. Product diffusion was a special form of technological diffusion, referring to the process of expanding products produced originally in one country or region to other countries and regions through exportation, franchising, and other means. Product diffusion could bring wider markets and higher profits, further promoting economic growth.
The scope of technology diffusion mainly includes the domestic and global markets, intra- and inter-enterprise markets, and government markets [79]. The models for calculating technology diffusion include the innovation diffusion model, incentive model, and contagion model [80]. In practice, technology diffusion connects product diffusion. Product diffusion refers to the process of introducing and promoting new products in the market, including market demand, market segmentation, and promotion strategies [81].
Open-source software is diffused at the level of artificial artifacts [82][83]. The essence of open-source diffusion is the shared spreading of source code and technical documentation as well as asynchronous participatory innovative iterations [84]. Community-driven operation facilitates rapid software diffusion [85], and open-source software developers interact with users on community platforms to acquire user needs and proactively address relevant user issues, thus providing technical support and upgrade services to increase user retention and loyalty. Industry applications promote open-source diffusion [86] by integrating open-source software into vertical application systems; it enables vertical industries and application areas, increases software market value and demand, and achieves rapid diffusion and profit. In social network operation [87], open source software can use social media and other network platforms for community and brand promotion, actively expand user networks and increase software awareness.
In summary, open source has characteristics of openness and sharing, and is a paradigm of open innovation. Its diffusion model has unique methods. Open-source diffusion is expected to further promote smart digital infrastructure and sustainability as well as mitigate software supply chain risks.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151914412

References

  1. Nogueira, E.; Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M. Triple Bottom Line, Sustainability, and Economic Development: What Binds Them Together? A Bibliometric Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6706.
  2. Mcgahan, A.M.; Bogers, M.L.A.M.; Chesbrough, H.; Holgersson, M. Tackling Societal Challenges with Open Innovation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2021, 63, 49–61.
  3. Perens, B. The emerging economic paradigm of Open Source. First Monday 2005, 10.
  4. Yigitcanlar, T.; Mehmood, R.; Corchado, J.M. Green Artificial Intelligence: Towards an Efficient, Sustainable and Equitable Technology for Smart Cities and Futures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8952.
  5. Alotaibi, S.; Mehmood, R.; Katib, I.; Rana, O.; Albeshri, A. Sehaa: A Big Data Analytics Tool for Healthcare Symptoms and Diseases Detection Using Twitter, Apache Spark, and Machine Learning. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1398.
  6. Bonvoisin, J. Implications of Open Source Design for Sustainability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, Cham, Switzerland, 1 January 2016; Setchi, R., Howlett, R.J., Liu, Y., Theobald, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 49–59.
  7. Dong, X.; Jin, S.; Lu, X. Comparison of Xiaomi Smart Home and Huawei HarmonyOS Business Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Business and Policy Studies, Singapore, 1 January 2022; Li, X., Yuan, C., Ganchev, I., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 640–648.
  8. Kalok, S. The Analysis of Smartphones’ Operating System and Customers’ Purchasing Decision: Application to HarmonyOS and Other Smartphone Companies. In Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic Development (ICFIED 2022), Harbin, China, 1 January 2022; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 417–421.
  9. Oh, S.; Seo, B.; Hahm, C.; Song, J.; Lee, J.; Lee, T. Dynamic boosting for fast user interactivity in smart devices using Tizen OS. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Asia (ICCE-Asia), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 26–28 October 2016; pp. 1–3.
  10. Liu, S.; Rong, X.; Li, S.; Dong, A. Design of harmony OS-based IOT system for wearable health monitoring. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things and Machine Learning (IoTML 2021), Dalian, China, 17–19 December 2021.
  11. Cui, P.; Liu, Z.; Bai, J. Linux Storage I/O Performance Optimization Based on Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 4th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICNLP), Xi’an, China, 25–27 March 2022; pp. 552–557.
  12. Ugur, M.; Jiang, C.; Erf, A.; Ahmed Khan, T.; Kasikci, B. One Profile Fits All. Acm Sigops Oper. Syst. Rev. 2022, 56, 26–33.
  13. Haim Faridian, P.; Neubaum, D.O. Ambidexterity in the age of asset sharing: Development of dynamic capabilities in open source ecosystems. Technovation 2021, 99, 102125.
  14. Yu, L.; Schach, S.R.; Chen, K.; Heller, G.Z.; Offutt, J. Maintainability of the kernels of open-source operating systems: A comparison of Linux with FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. J. Syst. Softw. 2006, 79, 807–815.
  15. Lund, A.; Zukerfeld, M. (Eds.) Profiting from Free and Open Source Software. In Corporate Capitalism’s Use of Openness: Profit for Free? Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 109–147.
  16. Välimäki, M.; Oksanen, V. The impact of free and open source licensing on operating system software markets. Telemat. Inform. 2005, 22, 97–110.
  17. Sokol, D.D.; Zhu, F. Harming Competition and Consumers under the Guise of Protecting Privacy: An Analysis of Apple’s iOS 14 Policy Updates Essay. Cornell Law Rev. Online 2021, 107, 94.
  18. Jenkins, G.T.; Bing, R.W. Microsofts Monopoly: Anti-Competitive Behavior, Predatory Tactics, and the Failure of Governmental Will. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2007, 5, 1–16.
  19. Schmidt, K.M.; Schnizter, M. Public subsidies for open source? Some economic policy issues of the software market. Harv. J. Law Technol. 2003, 16, 473.
  20. Willinsky, J. The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday 2005, 10.
  21. Nørskov, S.V.; Rask, M. Observation of Online Communities: A Discussion of Online and Offline Observer Roles in Studying Development, Cooperation and Coordination in an Open Source Software Environment. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung/Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2011, 12, 5.
  22. Schweik, C.; Evans, T.; Grove, J.M. Open source and open content: A framework for global collaboration in social-ecological research. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10, 33. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art33/ (accessed on 29 September 2023).
  23. Lerner, J.; Tirole, J. Some Simple Economics of Open Source. J. Ind. Econ. 2002, 50, 197–234.
  24. Lerner, J.; Tirole, J. The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond. J. Econ. Perspect. 2005, 19, 99–120.
  25. Shin, D. Ubiquitous city: Urban technologies, urban infrastructure and urban informatics. J. Inf. Sci. 2009, 35, 515–526.
  26. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M. Smart Cities and Mobility: Does the Smartness of Australian Cities Lead to Sustainable Commuting Patterns? J. Urban Technol. 2019, 26, 21–46.
  27. Batty, M. Artificial intelligence and smart cities. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2018, 45, 3–6.
  28. Zhang, Y.; Geng, P.; Sivaparthipan, C.B.; Muthu, B.A. Big data and artificial intelligence based early risk warning system of fire hazard for smart cities. Sustain. Energy Technol. 2021, 45, 100986.
  29. Ullah, Z.; Al-Turjman, F.; Mostarda, L.; Gagliardi, R. Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning in smart cities. Comput. Commun. 2020, 154, 313–323.
  30. Yigitcanlar, T.; Desouza, K.; Butler, L.; Roozkhosh, F. Contributions and Risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Building Smarter Cities: Insights from a Systematic Review of the Literature. Energies 2020, 13, 1473.
  31. Wang, S.; Cao, J. AI and Deep Learning for Urban Computing. In Urban Informatics; Shi, W., Goodchild, M.F., Batty, M., Kwan, M., Zhang, A., Eds.; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2021; pp. 815–844.
  32. Etro, F.; Caffarra, C. On the economics of the Android case. Eur. Compet. J. 2017, 13, 282–313.
  33. Mateos-Garcia, J.; Steinmueller, W.E. The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community. Inf. Econ. Policy 2008, 20, 333–344.
  34. Tabassum, M.; Mathew, K. Software evolution analysis of linux (Ubuntu) OS. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Computational Science and Technology (ICCST), Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, 1 January 2014; pp. 1–7.
  35. Imambi, S.; Prakash, K.B.; Kanagachidambaresan, G.R. PyTorch. In Programming with TensorFlow: Solution for Edge Computing Applications; Prakash, K.B., Kanagachidambaresan, G.R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 87–104.
  36. Virtanen, P.; Gommers, R.; Oliphant, T.E.; Haberland, M.; Reddy, T.; Cournapeau, D.; Burovski, E.; Peterson, P.; Weckesser, W.; Bright, J.; et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 2020, 17, 261–272.
  37. Economides, N.; Katsamakas, E. Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology Platforms and the Implications for the Software Industry. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1057–1071.
  38. Powell, A.B. Open culture and innovation: Integrating knowledge across boundaries. Media Cult. Soc. 2015, 37, 376–393.
  39. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Jung, K.; Yigitcanlar, T. The Culture for Open Innovation Dynamics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5076.
  40. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kankanamge, N.; Regona, M.; Maldonado, A.R.; Rowan, B.; Ryu, A.; Desouza, K.C.; Corchado, J.M.; Mehmood, R.; Li, R.Y.M. Artificial Intelligence Technologies and Related Urban Planning and Development Concepts: How Are They Perceived and Utilized in Australia? J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 187.
  41. Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2003; p. 227.
  42. Didenko, N.; Skripnuk, D.; Kikkas, K.; Kalinina, O.; Kosinski, E. The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Micrologistic System, and the Open Innovation in Logistics. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 115.
  43. Pedersen, K. What can open innovation be used for and how does it create value? Gov. Inform. Q. 2020, 37, 101459.
  44. Chesbrough, H. The Logic of Open Innovation: Managing Intellectual Property. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 33–58.
  45. Robertsone, G.; Lapiņa, I. Digital transformation as a catalyst for sustainability and open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100017.
  46. Christensen, J.F.; Olesen, M.H.; Kjær, J.S. The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation—Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1533–1549.
  47. Bereznoy, A.; Meissner, D.; Scuotto, V. The intertwining of knowledge sharing and creation in the digital platform based ecosystem. A conceptual study on the lens of the open innovation approach. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 25, 2022–2042.
  48. Yun, J.J.; Cooke, P.; Jung, K.; Yang, B. Theme issue: Open innovation and ‘catch-up’: Globalist or localist? Eur. Plan. Stud. 2023, 31, 845–861.
  49. Gassmann, O.; Enkel, E.; Chesbrough, H. The future of open innovation. R&D Manag. 2010, 40, 213–221.
  50. Bogers, M.; Chesbrough, H.; Moedas, C. Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 60, 5–16.
  51. Yun, J.J.; Ahn, H.J.; Lee, D.S.; Park, K.B.; Zhao, X. Inter-rationality; Modeling of bounded rationality in open innovation dynamics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2022, 184, 122015.
  52. Yun, J.; Pyka, A.; Lee, C.; Won, D.; Kim, D.; Jeong, E.S.; Kodama, F.; Schiuma, G.; Park, H.; Jeon, J.; et al. Open Innovation Dynamics; Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy in the 21st Century; Cambridge Scholars Publish: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2023; p. 527.
  53. Olson, D.L.; Rosacker, K. Crowdsourcing and open source software participation. Serv. Bus. 2013, 7, 499–511.
  54. Hansen, M.; Köhntopp, K.; Pfitzmann, A. The Open Source approach—Opportunities and limitations with respect to security and privacy. Comput Secur. 2002, 21, 461–471.
  55. Witten, B.; Landwehr, C.; Caloyannides, M. Does open source improve system security? IEEE Softw. 2001, 18, 57–61.
  56. Colombo, M.G.; Piva, E.; Rossi-Lamastra, C. Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 891–902.
  57. Alpern, B.; Augart, S.; Blackburn, S.M.; Butrico, M.; Cocchi, A.; Cheng, P.; Dolby, J.; Fink, S.; Grove, D.; Hind, M.; et al. The Jikes Research Virtual Machine project: Building an open-source research community. IBM Syst. J. 2005, 44, 399–417.
  58. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X. Business Model Innovation through a Rectangular Compass: From the Perspective of Open Innovation with Mechanism Design. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 131.
  59. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Park, K.; Della Corte, V.; Del Gaudio, G. The way to the ‘comedy of commons’ of a new business model-finding from Naples in Italy, and Jeju Island in South Korea. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2023, 31, 947–973.
  60. Yigitcanlar, T.; Han, H.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Ioppolo, G.; Sabatini-Marques, J. The making of smart cities: Are Songdo, Masdar, Amsterdam, San Francisco and Brisbane the best we could build? Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104187.
  61. Yigitcanlar, T.; Cugurullo, F. The Sustainability of Artificial Intelligence: An Urbanistic Viewpoint from the Lens of Smart and Sustainable Cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8548.
  62. Yigitcanlar, T.; Corchado, J.M.; Mehmood, R.; Li, R.Y.M.; Mossberger, K.; Desouza, K. Responsible Urban Innovation with Local Government Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 71.
  63. Ljungberg, J. Open source movements as a model for organising. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 2017, 9, 208–216.
  64. Jullien, N.; Stol, K.; Herbsleb, J.D. A Preliminary Theory for Open-Source Ecosystem Microeconomics. In Towards Engineering Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) Ecosystems for Impact and Sustainability: Communications of NII Shonan Meetings; Fitzgerald, B., Mockus, A., Zhou, M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 49–68.
  65. Zhang, Y.; Zhou, M.; Stol, K.; Wu, J.; Jin, Z. How Do Companies Collaborate in Open Source Ecosystems? An Empirical Study of OpenStack. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 27 June–19 July 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1196–1208.
  66. Axelrod, W. Mitigating Software Supply Chain Risk. ISACA J. 2013, 4.
  67. Khojasteh, Y. Supply Chain Risk Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
  68. Aqlan, F. A software application for rapid risk assessment in integrated supply chains. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 43, 109–116.
  69. Sabbagh, B.A.; Kowalski, S. A Socio-technical Framework for Threat Modeling a Software Supply Chain. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2015, 13, 30–39.
  70. He, J.; Alavifard, F.; Ivanov, D.; Jahani, H. A real-option approach to mitigate disruption risk in the supply chain. Omega 2019, 88, 133–149.
  71. Lustenberger, P.; Schumacher, F.; Spada, M.; Burgherr, P.; Stojadinovic, B. Assessing the Performance of the European Natural Gas Network for Selected Supply Disruption Scenarios Using Open-Source Information. Energies 2019, 12, 4685.
  72. Amankwah, R.; Chen, J.; Kudjo, P.K.; Towey, D. An empirical comparison of commercial and open-source web vulnerability scanners. Softw. Pract. Exp. 2020, 50, 1842–1857.
  73. Erickson, J.; Brydon, M.; Vining, A.R. Adoption, Improvement, and Disruption: Predicting the Impact of Open Source Applications in Enterprise Software Markets. J. Database Manag. 2009, 19, 22.
  74. Tucci, C.L.; Kaufman, A.; Wood, C.H.; Theyel, G. Collaboration and Teaming in the Software Supply Chain. Supply Chain Forum An. Int. J. 2005, 6, 16–28.
  75. Shekarian, M.; Mellat Parast, M. An Integrative approach to supply chain disruption risk and resilience management: A literature review. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 24, 427–455.
  76. Blanc, M.F.H. Open Source Innovation in Physical Products: Advantages and Disadvantages, a Corporate Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, Australia, 2011.
  77. Vukovic, V.; Raković, L. Open Source Approach in Software Development—Advantages and Disadvantages. Int. Sci. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2008, 3, 29–33.
  78. Schumpeter, J. The Theory of Economic Development; Harvard Economic Studies 46; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1911.
  79. Costa, Á.; Fernandes, R. Urban public transport in Europe: Technology diffusion and market organisation. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 269–284.
  80. Nicoletti, G.; von Rueden, C.; Andrews, D. Digital technology diffusion: A matter of capabilities, incentives or both? Eur. Econ. Rev. 2020, 128, 103513.
  81. Mahajan, V.; Muller, E.; Bass, F.M. New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 1–26.
  82. Ma, Y.; Fakhoury, S.; Christensen, M.; Arnaoudova, V.; Zogaan, W.; Mirakhorli, M. Automatic Classification of Software Artifacts in Open-Source Applications. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, Gothenburg, Sweden, 28–29 May 2018; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 414–425.
  83. Temizkan, O.; Kumar, R.L. Exploitation and Exploration Networks in Open Source Software Development: An Artifact-Level Analysis. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 2015, 32, 116–150.
  84. Hellman, J.; Cheng, J.; Guo, J.L.C. Facilitating Asynchronous Participatory Design of Open Source Software: Bringing End Users into the Loop. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 8–13 May 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
  85. Bonaccorsi, A.; Rossi, C. Why Open Source software can succeed. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 1243–1258.
  86. Shanker, A. A Customer Value Creation Framework for Businesses That Generate Revenue with Open Source Software. Technol. Innov. Manag. 2012, 2, 18–22.
  87. Long, Y.; Siau, K. Social network structures in open source software development teams. J. Database Manag. 2007, 18, 25–40.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback