Is It All Lost? A Study of Inactive Open Source Projects

  • Jymit Khondhu
  • Andrea Capiluppi
  • Klaas-Jan Stol
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 404)

Abstract

Open Source Software (OSS) proponents suggest that when developers lose interest in their project, their last duty is to “hand it off to a competent successor.” However, the mechanisms of such a hand-off are not clear, or widely known among OSS developers. As a result, many OSS projects, after a certain long period of evolution, stop evolving, in fact becoming “inactive” or “abandoned” projects. This paper presents an analysis of the population of projects contained within one of the largest OSS repositories available (SourceForge.net), in order to describe how projects abandoned by their developers can be identified, and to discuss the attributes and characteristics of these inactive projects. In particular, the paper attempts to differentiate projects that experienced maintainability issues from those that are inactive for other reasons, in order to be able to correlate common characteristics to the “failure” of these projects.

Keywords

Open Source Inactive Projects Maintainability Index 

References

  1. 1.
    Bakota, T., Hegedus, P., Ladanyi, G., Kortvelyesi, P., Ferenc, R., Gyimothy, T.: A cost model based on software maintainability. In: 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM, pp. 316–325 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, D.H.: The Goal Question Metric Approach. John Wiley & Sons (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capiluppi, A., González-Barahona, J.M., Herraiz, I., Robles, G.: Adapting the ‘staged model for software evolution’ to free/libre/open source software. In: Ninth International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, pp. 79–82 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capiluppi, A., Lago, P., Morisio, M.: Characteristics of open source projects. In: European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capiluppi, A., Stol, K., Boldyreff, C.: Software reuse in open source: A case study. International Journal on Open Source Software and Processes 3(3) (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Capiluppi, A., Stol, K., Boldyreff, C.: Exploring the role of commercial stakeholders in open source software evolution. In: Hammouda, I., Lundell, B., Mikkonen, T., Scacchi, W. (eds.) OSS 2012. IFIP AICT, vol. 378, pp. 178–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    English, R., Schweik, C.M.: Identifying success and tragedy of floss commons: A preliminary classification of sourceforge.net projects. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops, ICSEW 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fioravanti, F., Nesi, P.: Estimation and prediction metrics for adaptive maintenance effort of object-oriented systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(12), 1062–1084 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gao, Y., Van Antwerp, M., Christley, S., Madey, G.: A research collaboratory for the open source software research. In: First International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development, FLOSS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halstead, M.H.: Elements of Software Science. Operating and programming systems series. Elsevier Science Inc., New York (1977)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heitlager, I., Kuipers, T., Visser, J.: A practical model for measuring maintainability. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Quality of Information and Communications Technology, QUATIC 2007, pp. 30–39 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howison, J., Crowston, K.: The Perils and Pitfalls of Mining Sourceforge. In: Proc. International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, MSR (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCabe, T.J.: A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2(4), 308–320 (1976)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oman, P., Hagemeister, J.: Construction and testing of polynomials predicting software maintainability. The Journal of Systems and Software 24(3), 251–266 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raymond, E.S.: The Cathedral and the Bazaar, revised edition. O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., Sebastopol (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Samoladas, I., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., Oikonomou, A.: Open source software development should strive for even greater code maintainability. Commun. ACM 47(10), 83–87 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schach, S., Jin, B., Wright, D., Heller, G., Offutt, A.: Maintainability of the Linux Kernel. IEE Proceedings – Software Engineering 149(1) (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schweik, C.M., English, R.: Internet Success: A Study of Open Source Software Commons. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schweik, C.M., English, R., Paienjton, Q., Haire, S.: Success and abandonment in open source commons: Selected findings from an empirical study of sourceforge.net projects. In: 2nd workshop on Building Sustainable Open Source Communities, OSCOMM 2010, pp. 91–101 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stol, K., Ali Babar, M.: A comparison framework for open source software evaluation methods. In: Ågerfalk, P., Boldyreff, C., González-Barahona, J.M., Madey, G.R., Noll, J. (eds.) OSS 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 319, pp. 389–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiggins, A., Crowston, K.: Reclassifying success and tragedy in FLOSS projects. In: Ågerfalk, P., Boldyreff, C., González-Barahona, J.M., Madey, G.R., Noll, J. (eds.) OSS 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 319, pp. 294–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, L., Schach, S., Chen, K.: Measuring the maintainability of open-source software. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhou, Y., Xu, B.: Predicting the maintainability of open source software using design metrics. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 13, 14–20 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jymit Khondhu
    • 1
  • Andrea Capiluppi
    • 1
  • Klaas-Jan Stol
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputingBrunel UniversityUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Lero—The Irish Software Engineering Research CentreUniversity of LimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations