Exploring the Role of Commercial Stakeholders in Open Source Software Evolution

  • Andrea Capiluppi
  • Klaas-Jan Stol
  • Cornelia Boldyreff
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 378)

Abstract

It has been lately established that a major success or failure factor of an OSS project is whether or not it involves a commercial company, or more extremely, when a project is managed by a commercial software corporation. As documented recently, the success of the Eclipse project can be largely attributed to IBM’s project management, since the upper part of the developer hierarchy is dominated by its staff. This paper reports on the study of the evolution of three different Open Source (OSS) projects — the Eclipse and jEdit IDEs and the Moodle e-learning system — looking at whether they have benefited from the contribution of commercial companies. With the involvement of commercial companies, it is found that OSS projects achieve sustained productivity, increasing amounts of output produced and intake of new developers. It is also found that individual and commercial contributions show similar stages: developer intake, learning effect, sustained contributions and, finally, abandonment of the project. This preliminary evidence suggests that a major success factor for OSS is the involvement of a commercial company, or more radically, when project management is in hands of a commercial entity.

References

  1. 1.
    Aaltonen, T., Jokinen, J.: Influence in the linux kernel community. In: Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Scacchi, W., Sillitti, A. (eds.) Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation. IFIP, vol. 234, pp. 203–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arisholm, E., Briand, L.C., Foyen, A.: Dynamic coupling measurement for object-oriented software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(8), 491–506 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.H.: The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 528–532. John Wiley & Sons (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berdou, E.: Insiders and outsiders: paid contributors and the dynamics of cooperation in community led f/os projects. In: Damiani, E., Fitzgerald, B., Scacchi, W., Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) Open Source Systems 2006. IFIP, vol. 203, pp. 201–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonaccorsi, A., Lorenzi, D., Merito, M., Rossi, C.: Business firms’ engagement in community projects. empirical evidence and further developments of the research. In: Proc. First International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonaccorsi, A., Rossi, C.: Contributing to os projects. a comparison between individual and firms. In: Proc. 4th Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering (WOSSE), pp. 18–22 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonaccorsi, A., Rossi, C.: Intrinsic motivations and profit-oriented firms. do firms practise what they preach? In: Proc. First International Conference on Open Source Systems, pp. 241–245 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Capiluppi, A., Baravalle, A., Heap, N.W.: Engaging without Over-Powering: A Case Study of a FLOSS Project. In: Ågerfalk, P., Boldyreff, C., González-Barahona, J.M., Madey, G.R., Noll, J. (eds.) OSS 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 319, pp. 29–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capiluppi, A., Baravalle, A., Heap, N.W.: From “community” to “commercial” floss – the case of moodle. In: Proc. Third Workshop on Emerging Trends in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research and Development, pp. 11–16. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Capiluppi, A., Fernández-Ramil, J.: Studying the evolution of open source systems at different levels of granularity: Two case studies. In: Proc. 7th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE), pp. 113–118. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Capiluppi, A., Michlmayr, M.: From the cathedral to the bazaar: An empirical study of the lifecycle of volunteer community projects. In: Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Scacchi, W., Silitti, A. (eds.) Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation. IFIP, vol. 234, pp. 31–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Capra, E., Francalanci, C., Merlo, F.: An empirical study on the relationship between software design quality, development effort and governance in open source projects. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 34(6), 765–782 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Capra, E., Francalanci, C., Merlo, F., Rossi Lamastra, C.: A Survey on Firms’ Participation in Open Source Community Projects. In: Boldyreff, C., Crowston, K., Lundell, B., Wasserman, A.I. (eds.) OSS 2009. IFIP AICT, vol. 299, pp. 225–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crowston, K., Wei, K., Howison, J., Wiggins, A.: Free/libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM Computing Surveys 44(2) (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dahlander, L., Magnusson, M.G.: Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from nordic firms. Research Policy 34(4), 481–493 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software metrics: a practical and rigorous approach. Thomson (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guba, E.: Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology 29(2), 75–91 (1981)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied Software Architecture: A Practical Guide for Software Designers. Addison-Wesley Professional (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hou, D.: Studying the evolution of the Eclipse Java editor. In: ECLIPSE 2007: Proc. OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology Exchange, pp. 65–69. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Igarashi, A., Pierce, B.C.: On inner classes. Information and Computation 177(1), 56–89 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, W., Henry, S.: Object-oriented metrics that predict maintainability. The Journal of Systems and Software 23(2), 111–122 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martinez-Romo, J., Robles, G., González-Barahona, J.M., Ortuño-Perez, M.: Using social network analysis techniques to study collaboration between a floss community and a company. In: Russo, B., Damiani, E., Scott Hissam, B.L., Succi, G. (eds.) Open Source Development, Communities and Quality, pp. 171–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCabe, T.J., Butler, C.W.: Design complexity measurement and testing. Communications of the ACM, 1415–1425 (December 1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mens, T., Fernández-Ramil, J., Degrandsart, S.: The evolution of Eclipse. In: Proc. 24th International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 386–395 (October 2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merlo, E., Antoniol, G., Di Penta, M., Rollo, V.F.: Linear complexity object-oriented similarity for clone detection and software evolution analyses. In: Proc. 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 412–416. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raymond, E.S.: The Cathedral and the Bazaar. O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., Sebastopol (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robles, G., Dueñas, S., González-Barahona, J.M.: Corporate involvement of libre software: Study of presence in debian code over time. In: Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Scacchi, W., Sillitti, A. (eds.) Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation, pp. 121–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robles, G., Gonzalez-Barahona, J.M., Herraiz, I.: Evolution of the core team of developers in libre software projects. In: Proc. 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp. 167–170 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rossi, C., Bonaccorsi, A.: Why profit-oriented companies enter the os field?: intrinsic vs. extrinsic incentives. In: Proc. 5th Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering (WOSSE). ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Santos Jr, C.D., Kuk, G., Kon, F., Suguiura, R.: The inextricable role of organizational sponsorship for open source sustainability. In: Proc. 2nd Workshop Towards Sustainable Open Source (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schaarschmidt, M., von Kortzflieisch, H.F.: Divide et impera! the role of firms in large open source software consortia. In: Proc. 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shibuya, B., Tamai, T.: Understanding the process of participating in open source communities. In: Proc. 2nd Workshop on Emerging Trends in Free/Libre/Open Source Software Research and Development (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wermelinger, M., Yu, Y.: Analyzing the evolution of eclipse plugins. In: Proc. International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp. 133–136. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wermelinger, M., Yu, Y., Lozano, A.: Design principles in architectural evolution: a case study. In: Proc. 24th International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 396–405 (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wermelinger, M., Yu, Y., Lozano, A., Capiluppi, A.: Assessing architectural evolution: a case study. International Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, 623–666 (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wermelinger, M., Yu, Y., Strohmaier, M.: Using formal concept analysis to construct and visualise hierarchies of socio-technical relations. In: Proc. 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Companion Volume, pp. 327–330. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Capiluppi
    • 1
  • Klaas-Jan Stol
    • 2
  • Cornelia Boldyreff
    • 3
  1. 1.Brunel UniversityUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Lero—The Irish Software Engineering Research CentreUniversity of LimerickIreland
  3. 3.University of East LondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations