Differences between Traditional and Open Source Development Activities

  • John Wilmar Castro Llanos
  • Silvia Teresita Acuña Castillo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7343)


The growing importance of open source software (OSS) has led researchers to study how OSS processes differ from traditional software engineering processes. The aim of this study is to determine the differences and similarities between development process activities (requirements, design, and implementation) enacted by the OSS community and established by IEEE Standard 1074:2006. We conducted a systematic mapping study to find out which activities are part of the OSS development process. We identified a total of 22 primary studies. Of these, 46% described activities related to the requirements process, just over 60% reported activities related to design and almost all accounted for activities related to implementation. The OSS community does not enact prescriptive software engineering models. OSS requirements are evolved using several different web artefacts, as well as through continual interactions in forums and via messaging. Requirements are asserted rather than elicited. A common feature of all OSS projects is that software system design and implementation is modular. The priority in the OSS community is implementation. Anyone, developers or users, can make contributions, including designs and code.


Systematic Mapping Study Software Development Process Open Source Requirements Engineering 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Scacchi, W., Jensen, C., Noll, J., Elliott, M.: Multi-Modal Modeling of Open Source Software Requirements Processes. In: First International Conference on Open Source Systems, Genova, Italy, pp. 1–8 (2005) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tian, Y.: Developing an Open Source Software Development Process Model Using Grounded Theory, Universidad of Nebraska – Lincoln, NB, USA, 143 p. (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Potdar, V., Chang, E.: Open Source and Closed Source Software Development Methodologies. In: 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 105–109 (2004) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scacchi, W.: Understanding the Requirements for Developing Open Source Software Systems. IEE Proceedings-Software 149(1), 24–39 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scacchi, W.: Free and Open Source Software Development Practices in the Computer Game Community. IEEE Software 21(1), 59–67 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scacchi, W.: Socio-Technical Interaction Networks in Free/Open Source Software Development Processes. In: Acuña, S.T., Juristo, N. (eds.) Software Process Modeling, pp. 1–27. Springer, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mockus, A., Fielding, R.T., Herbsleb, J.: A Case Study of Open Source Software Development: The Apache Server. In: 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerck, Ireland, pp. 263–272 (2000) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mockus, A., Fielding, R.T., Herbsleb, J.: Two Case Studies of Open Source Software Development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(3), 309–346 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuggetta, A.: Open Source Software: An Evaluation. Journal of System and Software 66, 77–90 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Godfrey, M.V., Tu, Q.: Evolution in Open Source Software: A Case Study. In: International Conference Software Maintenance (ICSM 2000), San José, CA, pp. 131–142 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IEEE Std 1074:2006: IEEE Standard for Developing Software Life Cycle Processes. IEEE Computer Society (2006) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M.: Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering. In: 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 71–80 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IEEE Computer Society Professional Practices Committee: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK, version 2004). IEEE Computer Society. Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Wilmar Castro Llanos
    • 1
  • Silvia Teresita Acuña Castillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería InformáticaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations