Evolutionary Success of Open Source Software: an Investigation into Exogenous Drivers

The “success” of a Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) project has often been evaluated through the number of commits made to its configuration management system, number of developers and number of users. Based on Source- Forge, most studies have concluded that the vast majority of projects are failures. This paper argues that the relative success of a FLOSS project can depend also on the chosen forge and distribution. Given a random sample of 50 projects contained within a popular FLOSS forge (Debian, which is the basis of the successful Debian distribution), we compare these with a similar sample from SourceForge, using product and process metrics, such as size achieved and number of developers involved. The results show firstly that, depending on the forge of FLOSS projects, researchers can draw different conclusions regarding what constitutes a successful FLOSS project. Secondly, the projects included in the Debian distribution benefit, on average, from more evolutionary activity and more developers than the comparable projects on SourceForge. Finally, the Debian projects start to benefit from more activity and more developers from the point at which they join this distribution.

[1]  Martin Michlmayr,et al.  How to have a successful free software project , 2004, 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.

[2]  F. Wilcoxon.  Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[3]  J. Herbsleb,et al.  Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla , 2002, TSEM.

[4]  Austen Rainer,et al.  Evaluating the Quality and Quantity of Data on Open Source Software Projects , 2005 .

[5]  Gregorio Robles,et al.  Remote analysis and measurement of libre software systems by means of the CVSAnalY tool , 2004, ICSE 2004.

[6]  Dawid Weiss,et al.  Measuring success of open source projects using web search engines , 2005 .

[7]  R. English,et al.  Identifying Success and Tragedy of FLOSS Commons: A Preliminary Classification of Sourceforge.net Projects , 2007, First International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development (FLOSS'07: ICSE Workshops 2007).

[8]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  SCQL , 2005, MSR.

[9]  Ioannis Stamelos,et al.  Code quality analysis in open source software development , 2002, Inf. Syst. J..

[10]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Defining Open Source Software Project Success , 2003, ICIS.

[11]  Dewayne E. Perry,et al.  Metrics and laws of software evolution-the nineties view , 1997, Proceedings Fourth International Software Metrics Symposium.

[12]  Katherine J. Stewart,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Factors Influencing the Level of Vitality and Popularity of Open Source Projects , 2002, ICIS.

[13]  Patricia Lago,et al.  Characterizing the OSS process , 2002 .

[14]  Andrea Capiluppi,et al.  Models for the evolution of OS projects , 2003, International Conference on Software Maintenance, 2003. ICSM 2003. Proceedings..

[15]  Martin Michlmayr,et al.  From the Cathedral to the Bazaar: An Empirical Study of the Lifecycle of Volunteer Community Projects , 2007, OSS.

[16]  Katsuro Inoue,et al.  Very-Large Scale Code Clone Analysis and Visualization of Open Source Programs Using Distributed CCFinder: D-CCFinder , 2007, 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07).

[17]  Jesús M. González-Barahona,et al.  Contributor Turnover in Libre Software Projects , 2006, OSS.

[18]  Gerardo Canfora,et al.  Identifying Changed Source Code Lines from Version Repositories , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR'07:ICSE Workshops 2007).

[19]  Giuliano Antoniol,et al.  Modeling clones evolution through time series , 2001, Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance. ICSM 2001.

[20]  H. D. Rombach,et al.  The Goal Question Metric Approach , 1994 .

[21]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  Using software trails to reconstruct the evolution of software , 2004, J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract..