Engaging without Over-Powering: A Case Study of a FLOSS Project

  • Andrea Capiluppi
  • Andres Baravalle
  • Nick W. Heap
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 319)


The role of Open Source Software (OSS) in the e-learning business has become more and more fundamental in the last 10 years, as long as corporate and government organizations have developed their educational and training programs based on OSS out-of-the-box tools. This paper qualitatively documents the decision of the largest UK e-learning provider, the Open University, to adopt the Moodle e-learning system, and how it has been successfully deployed in its site after a multi-million investment. A further quantitative study also provides evidence of how a commercial stakeholder has been engaged with, and produced outputs for, the Moodle community. Lessons learned from this experience by the stakeholders include the crucial factors of contributing to the OSS community, and adapting to an evolving technology. It also becomes evident how commercial partners helped this OSS system to achieve the transition from an “average” OSS system to a successful multi-site, collaborative and community-based OSS project.


Open Source Software Software Maintenance Open Source Software Project Open Source Community Commercial Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Baravalle, A., Chambers, S.: Market Relations. Non-Market Relations and Free Software. PsychNology Journal 5(3), 299–309 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beecher, K., Capiluppi, A., Boldyreff, C.: Identifying exogenous drivers and evolutionary stages in FLOSS projects. Journal of Systems and Software 82(5), 739–750 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonaccorsi, A., Rossi, C.: Altruistic individuals, selfish firms? The structure of motivation in open source software. First Monday 1(9) (January 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capiluppi, A.: Models for the evolution of OS projects. In: Proc. of Intl. Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2003), Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 65–74 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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, pp. 31–44 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 Trans. Softw. Eng. 34(6), 765–782 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalziel, J.: Open standards versus open source in e-learning: The easy answer not be the best answer. Educause Quarterly 4, 4–7 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fang, Y., Neufeld, D.: Understanding Sustained Participation in Open Source Software Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems 25(4), 9–50 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feller, J., Fitzgerald, B., Hecker, F., Hissam, S., Lakhani, K., van der Hoek, A. (eds.): Characterizing the OSS process. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, M., Pinzger, M., Gall, H.: Populating a release history database from version control and bug tracking systems. In: Proc. of Intl. Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2003), Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 23–32 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    German, D.M.: An Empirical Study of Fine-Grained Software Modifications. In: Proc. of Intl. Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2004), Chicago, US (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    German, D.M.: The gnome project: a case study of open source, global software development. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 8(4), 201–215 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hemetsberger, A., Reinhardt, C.: Sharing and creating knowledge in open-source communities: The case of kde. In: Procedings of the Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC), Insbruck University (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koch, S., Schneider, G.: Effort, cooperation and coordination in an open source software project: Gnome. Information Systems Journal 12(1), 27–42 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuniavsky, M., Raghavan, S.: Guidelines are a tool: building a design knowledge management system for programmers. In: DUX ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Designing for User eXperience. AIGA: American Institute of Graphic Arts, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Laat, P.B.: Governance of open source software: State of the art. Journal of Management and Governance 11(2), 115–117 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mens, T., Ramil, J.F., Godfrey, M.W.: Analyzing the evolution of large-scale software: Guest editorial. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution 16(6), 363–365 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michlmayr, M., Senyard, A.: A statistical analysis of defects in Debian and strategies for improving quality in free software projects. In: Bitzer, J., Schrder, P.J.H. (eds.) The Economics of Open Source Software Development, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robles, G., González-Barahona, J.M.: Contributor turnover in libre software projects. In: Damiani, E., Fitzgerald, B., Scacchi, W., Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) OSS. IFIP, vol. 203, pp. 273–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robles, G., Duenas, 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.) OSS. IFIP, vol. 234. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, N., Capiluppi, A., Ramil, J.F.: Agent-based simulation of open source evolution. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 11(4), 423–434 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wermelinger, M., Yu, Y., Strohmaier, M.: Using formal concept analysis to construct and visualise hierarchies of socio-technical relations. In: Proc. of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, May 18-24 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Capiluppi
    • 1
  • Andres Baravalle
    • 1
  • Nick W. Heap
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre of Research on Open Source Software (CROSS)University of East LondonUK
  2. 2.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations