CoverI. Intellectual Property1. James Boyle, “The Why of Intellectual Property”2. James Boyle, “Thomas Jefferson Writes a Letter”II. Free Software3. Richard Stallman, “What is Free Software?”4. Richard Stallman, “The GNU Project”III. Open Source5. Eric Raymond, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”6. Eric Raymond, “Homesteading the Noosphere”IV. Open Content7. David Wiley, “About the Open Publication License”8. David Wiley, “Open Content: The First Decade”V. Defining Free9. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “The Four Freedoms Speech”10. Richard Stallman, “Four Freedoms”11. Erik Moller, “Freedom Defined”12. Bruce Perens, “Debian Free Software Guidelines”VI. Defining Open13. Bruce Perens, “The Open Source Definition”14. David Wiley, “Open Content”15. OKFN, “Open Definition”16. David Wiley, “The Access Compromise and the 5th R”17. David Wiley, “Open Definitions, Specificity, and Avoiding Bright Lines”VII. Open Source Software Licenses18. GNU General Public License19. BSD License20. MIT License21. Apache License22. Comparison of Open Source LicensesVIII. Open Content Licenses23. Creative Commons Licenses24. GNU Free Documentation License25. Open Publication LicenseIX. Open CourseWare26. Charles Vest, “Disturbing the Educational Universe: Universities in the Digital Age — Dinosaurs or Prometheans?”27. History of MIT OCW28. MIT OCW Evaluation Report (2005)29. MIT Reaches OCW Milestone30. David Wiley, “OpenCourseWars”X. Open Educational Resources31. UNESCO Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing32. Cape Town Open Education Declaration33. UNESCO, “2012 Paris OER Declaration”34. Wiley, Bliss, and McEwen, “Open Educational Resources: OER Literature Review”35. Boston Consulting Group, “Open Educational Resources: The OER Ecosystem”XI. Open Textbooks36. Nicole Allen, “Open Textbooks: A Cover to Cover Solution: How Open Textbooks are the Path to Affordability”37. Frydenberg and Matkin, “Open Textbooks: Why? What? How? When?”XII. Research in Open Education38. OER Research Hub39. Open Education Group40. Marshall Smith, “Ruminations on Research on OER”XIII. The Economics of Open41. Yochai Benkler, “Coases Penguin, or Linux and The Nature of the Firm”42. Yochai Benkler, “Common Wisdom: Peer Production of Educational Materials”43. Yochai Benkler, “‘Sharing Nicely’: On shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production”XIV. Open Business Models44. Eric Raymond, “The Magic Cauldron”45. OSI, “Open Source Case for Business”46. Various, “A Summer 2014 Conversation on Business Models in Open Education”

Yochai Benkler, “Coases Penguin, or Linux and The Nature of the Firm”

Read the article at


Yochai Benkler’s “Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm” was written at the beginning of the Web 2.0 age and has provided very accurate frameworks for viewing the expansion of peer-driven projects in the internet atmosphere.  By applying fundamental economic thought to these projects, Benkler shows that that they actually can grow out of our current models and should be as fundamental as the models we use right now.  Coase, an influential economists, introduced a model of firm formation in 1960.  The model worked well until the rise of the internet showed instances where individuals and structures (like Linus and the Linux project) defied the model.  Through examining these modern exceptions with the same framework of assumptions as Coase used writing The Nature of the Firm, Benkler extends the model to form an additional model of peer production, which could be help society understand whether to use free markets, firms, or peer-production structures to efficiently optimize production.

Key Points

Despite models and theory that would say that individuals won’t expend large efforts on work on projects in which they receive no (monetary) reward, we see that quite a few do, e.g GNU, NASA click worker, Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg, academia etc.

Part I illustrates the “phenomenon of large- and medium scale collaborations among individuals that are organized without markets or managerial hierarchies” that are “emerging everywhere in the information and cultural production system.”

Part II is the framework for explaining this phenomenon. Many individuals independently search the available information and opportunities to participate. They self-identify their tasks for various reasons. Individuals choose their own tasks, which makes them more viable. This requires a review system so that people don’t take on something they can’t do. Also part II explains the advantages of “commons-based peer production” over markets or firms. They have improved identification and allocation of creative/capable people to achieve certain tasks. Commons-based peer production has a distinct advantage, drawing upon the creativity of many.

Part III is about motivation. Nobody will invest if they can’t benefit from it so motivation plays an important role. There are diverse types of motivation and each will attract different people.

Open Projects should be:

Peer Production examples – how each component of the information-production chain is covered using a peer-based model online.

There are diverse motivations for why people contribute to open projects. There are three main types of rewards, the combination of which shapes motivation: monetary, hedonic, and social-psychological. These rewards can be positive or negative. The amount of motivations that a contributor needs is connected to the modularity and granularity of the project. “Peer production is limited not by the total cost or complexity of a project, but by its modularity, granularity, and the cost of integration.” Modularity is the extent to which a project can be broken down to parts that can be done independently by individuals. Granularity is the size of the modules. More people will be attracted to the project the smaller the modules are.

Discussion Questions

  1. How can we make educational resources more modular, granular, and easy to integrate?
  2. How does “Commons-based peer production” improve upon market or firm-based production strategies?
  3. What are the advantages of “commons-based peer production” over markets or firms?
  4. What has the Wikipedia phenomenon shown us since the writing of this article in 2002?
  5. How does motivation, project modularity and granularity, and the presence or absence of intellectual property rights play in to the success or non-success of commons-based peer production?