Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-55tpx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-14T15:06:35.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Demographics, Sociology, and Psychology of Open Source Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2010

Fadi P. Deek  and
James A. M. McHugh
Fadi P. Deek
Affiliation:
New Jersey Institute of Technology
James A. M. McHugh
Affiliation:
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Get access

Summary

Open source development is a form of distributed, collaborative, asynchronous, partly volunteer, software development. A new paradigm for cooperation like this invariably introduces new questions about its social characteristics and its affects on human behavior. Matters of interest range from the characteristics of the participants (demographic, motivational, etc.), the social psychology of their interactions, and the effectiveness of their cooperative processes, to the cognitive and problem-solving side effects of this kind of development. The purpose of this chapter is to survey these issues and identify some of the scientific and social concepts that can help in understanding them. We believe these social science perspectives can help provide a conceptual framework for better understanding open development. We will begin by considering the basic demographics of the phenomenon: the characteristics of the developer population, the motivations of developers and community participants, how participants interact, the diversity of projects, and so on. The survey by Kim (2003) is one of a number of useful surveys that have been done on these issues. We also examine relevant concepts from the field of social psychology, including the classic notions of norms and roles, factors that affect group interactions like compliance, internalization, identification and normative influence, the impact of power relationships and group cohesion, and the application of these concepts to open development. There are other useful abstractions available from cognitive science, such as the cognitive biases that affect group interactions and problem solving.

Type
Chapter
Information
Open Source
Technology and Policy
 , pp. 159 - 221
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kim, E. (2003). An Introduction to Open Source Communities. Blue Oxen Associates. http://www.blueoxen.com/research/00007/. Accessed January 10, 2007.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Brand, A. (2003). The Structure, Entrance, Production, Motivation and Control in an Open Source Project. http://dot.kde.org/1065087742/. Accessed November 29, 2006.
Feller, J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2002). Understanding Open Source Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Ghosh, R., Glott, R., Krieger, B., and Robles, G. (2002). Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study Final Report. International Institute of Infonomics, University of Maastricht, Netherlands and Berlecon Research GmbH, Berlin. http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Lakhani, K., Wolf, R., and Bates, J. (2002). The Boston Consulting Group Hacker Survey. http://www.osdn.com/bcg/BCGHACKERSURVEY-0.73.pdf. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Moon, J. and Sproul, L. (2002). Essence of Distributed Work: The Case of the Linux Kernel. In: Distributed Work, Hinds, S. K. Pamela (editor). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Chapter 16. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_11/moon/. Accessed December 3, 2006.Google Scholar
Reagle, J. (2003). Socialization in Open Technical Communities. http://opensource.mit.edu. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Robles, G., Scheider, H., Tretkowski, I., and Weber, N. (2001) WIDI – Who Is Doing It? A Research on Libre Software Developers. Technical University of Berlin. Also at: http://widi.berlios.de/paper/study.html. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Gacek, C. and Arief, B. (2004). The Many Meanings of Open Source. IEEE Software, 21(1), 34–40.
Ghosh, R., Glott, R., Krieger, B., and Robles, G. (2002). Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study Final Report. International Institute of Infonomics, University of Maastricht, Netherlands and Berlecon Research GmbH, Berlin. http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS/report/. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Hang, J., Hohensohn, H., Mayr, K., and Wieland, T. (2004). Benefits and Pitfalls of Open Source in Commercial Contexts. In: Free/Open Software Development, Koch, S. (editor). Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 222–241.Google Scholar
Hars, A. and Ou, S. (2002). Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source Software Projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 25–39.Google Scholar
J⊘rgensen, N. (2001). Putting It All in the Trunk: Incremental Software Development in the FreeBSD Open Source Project. Information Systems Journal, 11(4), 321–336.Google Scholar
Kim, E. (2003). An Introduction to Open Source Communities. Blue Oxen Associates. http://www.blueoxen.com/research/00007/. Accessed January 10, 2007.Google Scholar
Lakhani, K. and Wolf, R. (2003). Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. Sloan Working Paper 4425–03, 1–28.Google Scholar
Lakhani, K., Wolf, R., and Bates, J. (2002). The Boston Consulting Group Hacker Survey. http://www.osdn.com/bcg/BCGHACKERSURVEY-0.73.pdf. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Moglen, E. (1999). Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright. First Monday, 4(8). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_8/moglen/index.html. Accessed January 5, 2007.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. S. (1998). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday, 3(3). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/raymond/index.html. Ongoing version: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/. Accessed December 3, 2006.Google Scholar
Reagle, J. (2003). Socialization in Open Technical Communities. http://opensource.mit.edu. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Barabási, A. (2002). Linked: The New Science of Networks. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Barabási, A. L. and Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.Google ScholarPubMed
Krishnamurthy, S. (2002). Cave or Community: An Empirical Examination of 100 Mature Open Source Projects. First Monday, 7(6). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_6/krishnamurthy/index.html. Accessed December 3, 2006.Google Scholar
Moon, J. and Sproul, L. (2002). Essence of Distributed Work: The Case of the Linux Kernel. In: Distributed Work, Hinds, S. K. Pamela (editor). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Chapter 16. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_11/moon/. Accessed December 3, 2006.Google Scholar
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social Psychology, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Bales, R. (1950). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257–263.Google Scholar
Bales, R. (1951). Interaction Process Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bales, R. (1955). How People Interact in Conferences. Scientific American, 212, 3–7.Google Scholar
Bormann, E. G. (1975). Discussion and Group Methods: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Brand, A. (2003). The Structure, Entrance, Production, Motivation and Control in an Open Source Project. http://dot.kde.org/1065087742/. Accessed November 30, 2006.Google Scholar
DiBona, C., Ockman, S., and Stone, M. (1999). The Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate in Appendix A of Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Stone, M., Ockman, S., and DiBona, C. (editors). O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.Google Scholar
Ellis, C., Gibbs, S., and Rein, G. (1991). Groupware Some Issues and Experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(3), 39–58.Google Scholar
Erickson, E., Smith, D. N., Kellogg, W. A., Laff, M., Richards, J. T., and Bradner, E. (1999). Socially Translucent Systems: Social Proxies, Persistent Conversation, and the Design of Babble. In: Proceedings of the CHI'99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, 72–79.Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., Smith, S. M., and Brannon, L. A. (1999). Application of Social Cognition: Attitudes as Cognitive Structures. In: Handbook of Applied Cognition, Durso, F. T. (editor). John Wiley & Sons, New York, Chapter 7, 173–206.Google Scholar
Feller, J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2002). Understanding Open Source Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Fogel, K. (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project, O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.Google Scholar
Franz, H. (1999). The Impact of Computer-Mediated Communication on Information Overload in Distributed Teams. In: Proceedings of 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. Communications of the ACM, 37(1), 93–105.Google Scholar
Himanen, P. (2001). The Hacker Ethic. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
J⊘rgensen, N. (2001). Putting It All in the Trunk: Incremental Software Development in the FreeBSD Open Source Project. Information Systems Journal, 11(4), 321–336.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
Lerdorf, R. (2004). Do You PHP?http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/articles/php_experts/rasmus_php.html. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Penguin Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. (2004). How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. S. (1998). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday, 3(3). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/raymond/index.html. Accessed December 3, 2006.Google Scholar
Reagle, J. (2003). Socialization in Open Technical Communities. http://opensource.mit.edu.http://opensource.mit.edu. Accessed November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley, London.Google Scholar
Siegel, J., Dubrovski, V., Kiesler, S., and McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group Processes in Computer Mediated Communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.Google Scholar
Sproul, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.Google Scholar
Stutz, D. (2003). The Business Schools of Harvard and MIT Consider Free/Open Source. http://www.synthesist.net/writing/osspatents.html. Accessed November 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., and Lakhani, K. (2003). Community, Joining, and Specialization in Open Source Software Innovation: A Case Study. Research Policy, 32, 1217–1241.Google Scholar
Weber, S. (2004). The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., and McQueen, R. (1997). Generating Agreement in Dispersed, Computer-Mediated Groups: An Integrative Theoretical Framework. Department of Management Research Report, University of Waikato, 1–42.Google Scholar
Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., and McQueen, R. (2000). A Cognitive Three-Process Model of Computer-Mediated Group Interaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 431–456.Google Scholar
Whitworth, B., Gallupe, B., and McQueen, R. (2001). Generating Agreement in Computer-Mediated Groups. Small Group Research, 32(5), 625–665.Google Scholar
Zigurs, I. and Kozar, A. (1994). An Exploratory Study of Roles in Computer-Supported Groups. MIS Quarterly, 18, 277–314.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, Memory, and Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Dennis, A. R., Easton, A. C., Easton, G. K., George, J. F., and Nunamaker, J. F. (1990). Ad hoc versus Established Groups in an Electronic Meeting System Environment. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, III, 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Fogel, K. (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project, O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.Google Scholar
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., and Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The Emerging Conceptualization of Groups as Information Processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Hohmann, L. (1997). Journey of the Software Professional. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1991). The Social Organization of Distributed Cognition. In: Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., and Teasley, D. (editors). American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Moody, G. (2001). Rebel Code. Penguin Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nosek, J. (1998). The Case for Collaborative Programming. Communications of the ACM, 41(3), 105–108.Google Scholar
Olson, G. and Olson, J. (1999). Computer Supported Cooperative Work. In: Handbook of Applied Cognition, Durso, F. T. (editor). John Wiley & Sons, New York, Chapter 14, 409–442.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P. (1999). Cognitive Engineering Models and Cognitive Architectures in Human-Computer Interaction. In: Handbook of Applied Cognition, Durso, F. T. s(editor). John Wiley & Sons, New York, Chapter 15, 443–477.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. (2004). How to Ask Questions the Smart Way. http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html. Accessed November 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Raymond, E. S. (1998). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday, 3(3). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/raymond/index.html. Ongoing version: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/. Accessed December 3, 2006.Google Scholar
Robillard, P. N. and Robillard, M. P. (2000). Types of Collaborative Work in Software Engineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 53, 219–224.Google Scholar
Stacy, W. and Macmillan, J. (1995). Cognitive Bias in Software Engineering. Communications of the ACM, 39(6), 57–63.Google Scholar
Teaseley, B., Leventhal, L. M., and Rohlman, S. (1993). Positive Test Bias in Software Testing by Professionals: What's Right and What's Wrong. In: Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fifth Workshop, Cook, C. R., Scholtz, J. C., and Spohrer, J. C. (editors). Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McGrath, J. E. and Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups Interacting with Technology. Sage Pub, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Morgan, B. B. and Lassiter, D. L. (1992). Team Composition and Staffing. In: Teams: Their Training and Performance, Swezey, R. W. and Salas, E. (editors). Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
Olson, G. and Olson, J. (1997). Making Sense of the Findings: Common Vocabulary Leads to the Synthesis Necessary for Theory Building. In: Video-Mediated Communication, Finn, K., Sellen, A., and Wilbur, S. (editors). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., Siebold, D. R., and McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group Decision-Making as a Structuration Process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Connolly, T., Routhieaux, R. L., and Schneider, S. K. (1993). On the Effectiveness of Group Brainstorming: Test of One Underlying Cognitive Mechanism. Small Group Research, 24, 490–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, A. R. (1996). Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a Group to Information, but You Can't Make It Think. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 20(4), 433–457.Google Scholar
Dennis, A. R. and Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer Brainstorms: More Heads Are Better Than One. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531–537.Google Scholar
Fogel, K. (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.Google Scholar
Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Nunamaker, J., and Bastianutti, L. (1992). Electronic Brainstorming and Group Size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369.Google Scholar
Hohmann, L. (1997). Journey of the Software Professional. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Jones, K. (1988). Interactive Learning Events: A guide for Facilitators. Kogan Page, London.
McCool, R., Fielding, R., and Behlendorf, B. (1999). How the Web Was Won. http://www.linux-mag.com/1999-06/apache_01.html. Accessed November 30, 2006.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. and Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups Interacting with Technology. Sage Pub, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Nunamaker, J. F. (1999). Collaborative Computing: The Next Millennium. Computer, 32(9), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., Romano, N. C., and Mittleman, D. (1996). The Virtual Office Workspace: Group Systems Web and Case Studies. In: Groupware: Collaborative Strategies for Corporate LANs and Intranets, Coleman, D. (editor). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., and Vogel, D. R. (1991a). Information Technology for Negotiating Groups. Management Science, 37(10), 1325–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., and George, J. F. (1991b). Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61.Google Scholar
Rooney, G. (2004). Practical Subversion. Apress Publishers, Berkley, CA.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Adrianson, D. and Hjelmquist, E. (1991). Group Process in Face-to-Face Computer Mediated Communication. Behavior and Information Technology, 10, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyle, M. (1969). Social Interaction. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Schaeffer, E. (1989). Contributing to Discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.Google Scholar
Daft, R. and Lengel, R. (1984). Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design. In: Research on Organizational Behavior, vol. 6, Cummings, L. and Staw, B. (editors). JAI Press, Homewood, IL.Google Scholar
Daly-Jones, O., Monk, A., and Watts, L. (1998). Some Advantages of Video Conferencing over High-Quality Audio Conferencing: Fluency and Awareness of Attentional Focus. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 49, 21–58.Google Scholar
Feller, J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2002). Understanding Open Source Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Pearson Education Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, B. and Bassett, G. (2003). Legal Issues Relating to Free and Open Software. In: Essays in Technology Policy and Law, vol. 1, Fitzgerald, B. and Bassett, G. (editors). Queensland University of Technology, School of Law, Brisbane, Australia., Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Fogel, K. (2005). Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.Google Scholar
Galegher, J. and Kraut, R. E. (1992). Computer-Mediated Communication and Collaborative Writing: Media Influence and Adaptation to Communication Constraints. CSCW, New York, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, D. and Coventry, L. (1998). The Effects of Visual Proxemic Information in Video Mediated Communication. SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(3), 30–39.Google Scholar
Hohmann, L. (1997). Journey of the Software Professional. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Kraut, R. E., Egido, C., and Galegher, J. (1990). Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaborations. In: Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 149–171.
Lee, A. S. (1994). Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An Empirical Investigation Using Hermeneutic Interpretation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 143–174.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. and Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups Interacting with Technology. Sage Pub, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Messerschmitt, D. (2004). Back to the User. IEEE Software, 21(1), 89–91.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. Harper and Row, New York.
Nunamaker, J. F. (1999). Collaborative Computing: The Next Millennium. Computer, 32(9), 66–71.Google Scholar
Olson, G. and Olson, J. (2000). Distance Matters. Human–Computer Interactions, 15, 139–178.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. A. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley, London.Google Scholar
Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1992). Social Influences and Influence of the “Social” in Computer-Mediated Communication. In: Contexts of Computer Mediated Communication, Lea, M. (editor). Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, Chapter 2, 30–65.Google Scholar
Sproul, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.Google Scholar
Torvalds, L. (1999). The Linux edge. Communications of the ACM, 42(4), 38–39.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, Y., Yokozawa, M., Shinohara, T., and Ishida, T. (2000). Collaboration with Lean Media: How Open-Source Software Succeeds. In: Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference (CSCW '00). ACM, New York, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, S. and O'Conaill, B. (1997). The Role of Vision in Face-to-Face and Mediated Communication. In: Video-Mediated Communication, Finn, K., Sellen, A., and Wilbur, S. (editors). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, Chapter 2, 23–49.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×