Mozilla Open Innovation Project

In this section we review the concepts of commons based peer production by Benkler, and Kelty’s recursive public definitions to understand how it could be reformatted and updated to provide more of a contextual understanding in the global south. In Benkler and Nissenbaum’s work, they articulate that a commons based peer is a socio economic system of production based in the digital environment (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006). They provide examples of Linux and other open source software as examples and highlight the volunteering nature of the participants towards such softwares. Though, observed as a production model based on principles and virtues of the contributing groups of participants, the perception fails to understand the on ground realities of the participants. In its core it assumes that this model of participation production can be implemented globally in the exact same manner seen historically in the global north with the use of volunteers, clickworkers and other unpaid groups to produce digital innovations.

Similarly, when looking at Kelty’s definition of Recursive Publics we see him articulate the concept of recursive publics as a reorientation of classical production models and systems historically observed (Kelty, 2008). As per his definitions recursive publics exists to create almost revolutionary models of production existing to destabilize institutions of power with the removal of hierarchical structures in place for the production of software shifting the nature of knowledge based economies observed before. Thus, a recursive public does not merely produce a product, but also a continuous effort to maintain and protect it legally from formal institutions. His argument states that a recursive public ensures a cultural shift away from normal work relations and hierarchical structures, thus creating its own cultural norms and practices.

Yet with both these theories it is important to understand that inherent cultural factors, socio-economic hierarchies, resources available and other factors continue to play an important role in individuals becoming parts of such production chains. Though the idea of both the commons based peer production and recursive publics are important in their roles of identifying alternatives to hegemonic practices in the digital ecosystem, there needs to be further introspection of the assumption that all such participants are the same and can contribute equally to the domain.

From our observations in the study we would like there to be a further introspection of the variations in participants’ needs and resources when observing both the Open Source Software and the Free Software movements. An individual’s ability to participate completely in such movements, we believe, is closely tied to their immediate circumstances due to the various practices in place in their respective contextual environments. We believe that Open Innovation must exist as a stepping stone to the complete absorption of the OSS or FS movements in any country.

We define open innovation as the creation of technology enabled tools and products contextually relevant to the users of a geographic area that follows certain principles of the Open Source Software and Free Software movements. We argue that for many participants in the global south, following principles such as the use of legislative frameworks like Creative Commons, the open distribution of products, and the ability of different users to update the tools to fit their needs and requirements, can be seen as important steps that can eventually lead to better knowledge sharing practices. For this definition we look at four variables: geographical location, funding, institutional support, and the role of players.

Geographical Location

For the purpose of this study we articulate that open innovation takes further contextual understanding of the digital ecosystem and the technology enabled solutions produced by the sector. We believe that this is important as it must take into account participants’ geographical location in order to understand the various obstacles at play for those to enter the open source ecosystem. For example while looking at the Indian ecosystem it is important to take into account contextual realities that those from the country must face prior to becoming a contributing member of the digital ecosystem. While looking at the human development index, India ranks 131 out of 189 countries (PTI, 2020, The Economic Times).

Currently, the World Bank estimates that India has roughly 74 percent literacy rate of adults in the country (World Bank, 2021). Thus leaving almost a quarter of the country illiterate. Even within the country there is vast disparity in literacy rates with states like Kerala having 96.2 percent literacy and other states like Andhra Pradesh having 66.4% literacy (PTI, The Indian Express, 2021), we see further disparity again between male and female literacy.

Thus for citizens of the country to become a contributing member of the digital ecosystems there are vast hurdles to overcome with regards to access to basic education within the country, this is further compounded with other cultural factors that provide fewer opportunities for girls and members of scheduled castes, tribes and other minority groups. Thus to take part in the open source software movement and the free software movement the average Indian has more obstacles to overcome to actively participate.

Additionally, urban and rural disparities also create further barriers for individuals from the country to take part in such movements. With the lack of resources seen in rural areas which still make up the majority of where the population reside, roughly 65 percent of the population as per World Bank estimates (World Bank, 2021). With such disparity, the open source software movement currently caters to the few individuals who have been able to avail education and access to technological devices and adequate public infrastructure.

Hence, we believe it is important to understand the contextual understanding of the participants when critiquing the lack of open source software and free software movements in the country.

Funding

Another important aspect that we believe governs the likelihood of participation in the OSS and FS movements is access to funding and prominent funding mechanisms in the current digital and technological ecosystems in place. As seen in the previous sections some OSS and FS produced softwares were funded by private organisations such as IBM that believed that there were certain benefits with the creation of such softwares to the larger public. Similarly, other avenues such as schemes or well funded institutions enabled the promotion of such software practices seen in the global north.

However, in the case of India we do not see a concerted effort by large corporations to push for further open source software development in the country. Despite producing large digital corporations in the country and considered one of the leading countries for the incubation of startups, the focus of all corporations remains profit driven. Due to the nature of venture capitalist funding that permeates in many organisation in the technology ecosystem in the country, there exists a focus on the repayment of investments (Bhattacharya, 2021, Scroll.in,). India is home to over 55 unicorn startups currently (Venture Intelligence, 2021) and is considered the third largest country to host startups in the world (Patwardhan & Raghavan, LiveMint.com, 2021).

Yet despite the significant growth of this market, startups still depend on VC funding which creates focus on market monopolisation and protection of investments over the large sharing of software to the general public. Thus funding and the type of majority funding in the ecosystem plays a large role in the likelihood of participants focussing on the open source software movement in the country.

Institutional Support

In cases of countries such as Brazil, an important push towards the absorption of open source software and free software was through government intervention that promoted the use of open source software for all their administrative tasks (Shaw, 2011). It was led through the push of members of the Open Source community in the country that enabled the overarching use of OSS for the public sector in the country. In doing so opportunities were created to not only support the community by the government but to also promote such practices for the population overall.

In India the government has not enabled programs or policies to promote the use of open source software for the public sector, instead the Indian government has invested in large scale digital platforms using data collected by the government to enable both public and private players to create technology enabled solutions for the public (This can be read in further detail in the section titled “Large Scale Public Digital Platforms”). However, though the government argues that such platforms promote the notion of open source software in the country, what makes it different is the lack of access such platforms actually provide on the ground. Thus failing the purpose of providing open source software enabled tools and technologies.

Role of Players

Finally, we must also take into consideration the individual needs of the participants under such production chains. As highlighted in the previous sections there are already multiple obstacles in place for individuals in the country to participate in the movement consistently. With the lack of institutional support, lack of private funding and existing power structures, many in India already struggle to even enter the open source software movement. Though, both Kelty and Benkler look at the movement’s participation to be done with a focus on volunteer participation, can that be considered a sustainable model for individuals struggling to make ends meet is another question that must be taken into account.

India is currently seeing some of its highest unemployment rates in the last decade or so with further unemployment observed in both rural and urban spaces in the county (Beniwal, 2021,Bloomberg.com,). With a further decrease in formal employment thus creating further difficulties in steady incomes and consistent employment many in India are forced to enter informal job markets to make ends meet, which was accelerated by the pandemic (Mohanty, 2021,FortuneIndia.com,). Yet despite this the IT Sector in the country continues to grow and continues to hire new employees (Shinde, 2021, Business Standard,). However, even within the IT sector the growth continues to lean towards IT Services and e-commerce products, on the other hand engineering and R&D divisions actually fell since the pandemic and the growth of software development only rising by 2.7 percent in the last year.

Thus, we see that even under the job creation under these markets there is no clear focus towards the hiring of individuals to focus on software development or research and development within the sector. And with the precarious situation in availing jobs we believe that individuals are given lesser incentives to focus on these services due to the lack of employment opportunities. Thus for the promotion of both the OSS and FS movements there are no initiatives by any parties to promote such growth within the country.

Though definitions of commons based peer production and recursive publics assumes that all who participate in the movements contribute with their own individual skills that are integral for the creation of such software, at its core it fails to consider the multiple obstacles existing for an individual to enter such movements, not taking into account geographical and cultural differences, difficulties in gaining external aid, lack of institutional support and the difference of participants’ needs for the production of such technological enabled solutions. Thus we hope that by having the term open innovation that aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the contextual limitations of participation in such movements we can analyse and understand how to update systems in place that can eventually lead to better participation and innovations from different countries around the world. Open innovation also aims to understand the steps that organisations in these ecosystems attempt to implement to follow such beliefs and principles despite the constraints observed overall.