Developer experience · Empirical survey

Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source projects

International Journal of Electronic Commerce. · 2002

Hars, A., Ou, S.

Original paper ↗

Summary

Participants report a mix of intrinsic, learning, career and reciprocal motives.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Offer learning, reputation and reciprocity alongside mission.

Reported result

What the study found

Participants report a mix of intrinsic, learning, career and reciprocal motives.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Why do people work on OSS for free?

Design

Empirical survey

Sample and setting

Open source project participants

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Abstract evidence; early OSS era and self-selected respondents.

Research sources

Publisher DOI landing page abstract; design, context and findings are taken from the abstract.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.