SEMINAR REPORT

ON

OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT

BY

ONOBUN EROMOBOR CHRISTIAN

COLLEGE OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES

GREGORY UNIVERSITY
UTURU

5TH FEBRUARY 2024

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..3
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….4
1.1. ROLE OF OPEN SOURCE IN BUSINESS………………………………….....6
1.2. WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT FOR MORE
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES……………………………………………………….7
1.3. WHAT ASPECTS OF OPEN-SOURCE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE EQUALLY
APPLIED TO PROPRIETORY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT……………………8
1.4. CASUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOFTWARE BEING OPEN
SOURCE AND ITS QUALITY………………………………………………………....9
1.5. ROLE OF OPEN SOURCE IN BUSINESS……………………………………10
2. RELATED WORKS………………………………………………………………...11
3. ANALYSIS…………………………………………………………………………..13
4. MATERIALS AND
METHODS…………………………………………………….13
4.1. LITERATURE
REVIEW…………………………………………………………..13
5. LIMITATIONS AND
CONSTRAINTS……………………………………………..14
6.
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………....16
7. RECOMMENDATION………………………………………………………………
17
8. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………
18

2|Page
Abstract
The success of Linux and Apache has strengthened the opinion that the open-
source paradigm is one of the most promising strategies to enhance software
development activities' maturity, quality, and efficiency. This observation,
however, has not been discussed in much detail and critically addressed by the
software engineering community. Most of the claims associated with open source
appear to be weakly motivated and articulated.
The focus of this chapter is to review what is known about free and open source
software development (FOSSD) work practices, development processes, project
and community dynamics, and other socio-technical relationships. It does not
focus on specific properties or technical attributes of different FOSS systems, but
it does seek to explore how FOSS is developed and evolved. The chapter
provides a brief background on what FOSS is and how free software and open
source software development efforts are similar and different. From there
attention shifts to an extensive review of a set of empirical studies of FOSSD that
articulate different levels of analysis. These characterize what has been analyzed
in FOSSD studies across levels that examine why individuals participate;
resources and capabilities supporting development activities; how cooperation,
coordination, and control are realized in projects; alliance formation and inter-
project social networking; FOSS as a multiproject software ecosystem, and
FOSS as a social movement. Following this, the chapter reviews how different
research methods are employed to examine different issues in FOSSD. These
include reflective practice and industry polls, survey research, ethnographic
studies, mining FOSS repositories, and multi-modal modeling and analysis of
FOSSD processes and socio-technical networks. Finally, there is a discussion of
limitations and constraints in the FOSSD studies so far, attention to emerging
opportunities for future FOSSD studies, and then conclusions about what is
known about FOSSD through the empirical studies reviewed here.
Keywords: Free software, Open source software, empirical studies, socio-
technical relationships

3|Page
Introduction
In the past five years, open-source software has become one of the most
discussed topics among software users and practitioners. The increasing interest
in open source software has been motivated by at least three factors: the
success of products such as Linux and Apache, which are gaining increasing
shares in their markets (operating systems and HTTP servers); the uneasiness
about the Microsoft monopoly in the software industry; and, finally, the
increasingly strong opinion that “classical” approaches to software development
are failing to provide a satisfactory answer to the increasing demand for effective
and reliable software applications. The interest in open source is visible at
different levels and in different contexts:There is a very large community
of individual users who support and promote open source. This phenomenon is
particularly strong and visible in industrial and academic research, mostly in non-
software areas. A large number of supporters of the open-source approach are
not computer scientists. This can be explained by noticing that open source has
not been “created” by the computer science research community. Rather, it is the
answer of users to their increasing discomfort about the cost, complexity, and
constraints of many commercial products. On the other side, computer scientists
(and in particular software engineers) have often not considered the open source
approach as a real breakthrough in software development: they have ignored or
overlooked it.
Many companies are focusing their attention and effort on open source software.
This is the case of important computer manufacturers such as Sun and IBM,
which consider open source (or variations of this approach) as a strategic
opportunity to undermine the Microsoft monopoly and to enforce the
establishment of an open operational platform. Indeed, open source is also being
adopted and exploited by an increasing number of companies which consider
open-source products such as Linux a viable and competitive alternative to
proprietary solutions.
Finally, public institutions and governmental agencies, especially in Europe, are
increasingly interested in open-source software for two main reasons. First, open
source software is considered a viable strategy to counterbalance the dominance

4|Page
of US technology and to promote the development of a stronger European
software industry. Second, the increasing reliance of governments and public
administrations on software systems has generated a number of concerns about
their security, safety, and trustworthiness. Moreover, public administration and
governments are concerned about their dependency on specific software
providers and are therefore extremely interested in identifying approaches that
may help them increase their independence. In this respect, open source
advocates claim that the unrestricted availability of the source code makes it
possible to address these issues effectively. The success of open source
software has led a number of researchers and experts to believe that open
source might really be the answer to the software crisis. Some open source
advocates even say that in the future software will be open source or will not be
at all. This extreme position has been partially motivated by the success of most
“free internet services”, where revenues are based on selling support services or
advertising. Similarly, one can imagine that a software company can base its
revenues on support services rather than on selling licenses or source code,
even if recently this approach is being increasingly questioned and criticized
(Shankland, 2001).
In general, open source software is one of the most important phenomena of the
past five years. As such, it is essential to deepen our understanding of the nature
of open source software and of the factors that have motivated its success.
Unfortunately, most comments and observations about open source software
appear to be weakly motivated or even misleading. For instance, they implicitly
establish an unproved causal relationship between the software being open
source and its quality; moreover, there is a confusing interplay of ethical,
business, and technical motivations. As a consequence, it is difficult to really
identify the peculiar and novel aspects of open source development with respect
to other more traditional software development practices.
The goal of this paper is to provide a preliminary and qualitative evaluation of the
open source approach, by critically discussing the claims associated with open
source development. This will be accomplished by taking into account the results
and findings of software engineering research, some relevant literature on the
subject, several documents on open-source development, and the experiences
of the author in the field. The ultimate goal of this qualitative analysis is to provide
preliminary and tentative answers to the following questions:
What is meant by open source?
What is novel and different in open source development for more traditional
approaches?
5|Page
What aspects of open-source development can be equally applied to proprietary
software development?
Is there any causal relationship between the software being open source and its
quality/effectiveness?
What is the role of open source in business?

"Open source" refers to a development model for software that allows access to
the underlying source code, permitting users to view, modify, and distribute the
software freely. This approach stands in contrast to proprietary software, where
the source code is kept confidential and controlled by the software's creator or
owner.
Key characteristics of open source software include:
1. Access to Source Code: Users have the freedom to access and view the
source code of the software, enabling transparency and facilitating
collaborative development.
2. Modifiability: Users can modify the source code to suit their needs,
whether it involves fixing bugs, adding new features, or adapting the
software to specific requirements.
3. Distribution: Open source software can be freely distributed, allowing
users to share it with others without restrictions on usage or redistribution.
4. Community Collaboration: Open source projects often foster
communities of developers, users, and contributors who collaborate to
improve the software. This collective effort can lead to rapid innovation and
continuous enhancement of the software's quality.
5. Licensing: Open source software is typically licensed under an open
source license, which specifies the terms and conditions for use,
modification, and distribution. Common open source licenses include the
GNU General Public License (GPL), Apache License, and MIT License.
The open source model has become increasingly popular and has been widely
adopted in various domains, including software development, data science,
artificial intelligence, and hardware design. It promotes transparency, innovation,
and collaboration, enabling individuals and organizations to leverage and
contribute to a diverse ecosystem of software solutions.

6|Page
Open source development differs from more traditional approaches in several
key aspects:
1. Transparency and Collaboration: Open source development
emphasizes transparency by providing access to the source code for
anyone to view, modify, and contribute to. This openness fosters
collaboration among developers worldwide, enabling diverse perspectives
and expertise to be incorporated into the software's development.
2. Community-driven Innovation: Unlike traditional closed-source
development, where innovation is often limited to a specific team or
organization, open source projects benefit from the collective intelligence
and creativity of a global community. Contributors from different
backgrounds and organizations collaborate to solve problems, introduce
new features, and enhance the software's capabilities.
3. Decentralized Decision-making: In open source projects, decision-
making authority is distributed across the community rather than being
centralized within a single entity. This decentralized governance model
allows contributors to influence the direction of the project through
discussions, debates, and consensus-building processes.
4. Iterative Development and Rapid Prototyping: Open source
development typically follows an iterative and incremental approach, with
frequent releases and updates based on user feedback and evolving
requirements. This agile development model enables rapid prototyping,
experimentation, and adaptation to changing needs, leading to faster
innovation cycles.
5. Licensing and Legal Frameworks: Open source projects are governed
by open source licenses, which define the terms and conditions for using,
modifying, and distributing the software.
6. Community Engagement and Support: Open source projects often
prioritize community engagement and support, providing forums, mailing
lists, chat channels, and other communication platforms for users and
contributors to interact, seek help, and share knowledge. This vibrant
7|Page
 community ecosystem fosters learning, mentorship, and continuous
improvement.
Overall, open source development offers a more inclusive, transparent, and
collaborative approach to software creation, enabling individuals and
organizations to leverage collective intelligence and resources to build innovative
and impactful solutions.
While open-source development and proprietary software development have
distinct characteristics, there are several aspects of open-source development
that can be applied to proprietary software development:
1. Transparency in Development Processes: Proprietary software
development can benefit from adopting a more transparent approach to
certain aspects of the development process. This may include providing
stakeholders with visibility into project milestones, progress updates, and
decision-making processes, fostering trust and accountability.
2. Iterative Development and Agile Practices: Many proprietary software
development teams have adopted agile methodologies and iterative
development practices similar to those used in open-source projects.
Emphasizing incremental releases, user feedback, and continuous
improvement enables faster adaptation to changing requirements and user
needs.
3. Community Engagement and Feedback: While proprietary software
development does not involve the same level of external community
participation as open-source projects, engaging with users and gathering
feedback can still be valuable. Soliciting input from customers, conducting
usability testing, and incorporating user suggestions can enhance the
quality and usability of proprietary software.
4. Collaboration within Development Teams: Open-source development
emphasizes collaboration among distributed teams of developers, and
proprietary software development can similarly benefit from fostering a
culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing within development teams.
Encouraging communication, teamwork, and peer review can improve
code quality, reduce errors, and accelerate development cycles.
5. Adoption of Open Standards and Interoperability: Proprietary software
development can leverage open standards and interoperability principles
to ensure compatibility with other software systems and promote seamless
integration with third-party tools and services. Embracing open standards

8|Page
 can enhance interoperability, reduce vendor lock-in, and facilitate data
exchange between different systems.
6. Continuous Learning and Improvement: Both open-source and
proprietary software development can benefit from a culture of continuous
learning and improvement. Encouraging developers to stay updated on
industry best practices, emerging technologies, and new methodologies
can foster innovation, enhance skill sets, and drive long-term success.
The relationship between open-source software (OSS) and its quality or
effectiveness is complex and cannot be strictly defined as causal. However,
several factors contribute to the perception that open-source software tends to be
of high quality and effective in fulfilling its intended purpose:
1. Community Collaboration: Open-source projects typically benefit from
contributions from a diverse community of developers, testers, and users
who collectively identify and address bugs, security vulnerabilities, and
usability issues. The collaborative nature of open-source development can
lead to faster bug fixes, more thorough testing, and a higher degree of
innovation.
2. Transparency and Peer Review: The transparency of open-source code
allows anyone to inspect, review, and audit the software for errors,
inefficiencies, or security flaws. Peer review within the open-source
community helps identify and correct issues early in the development
process, leading to higher-quality software.
3. Rapid Iteration and Continuous Improvement: Open-source projects
often follow agile development practices, enabling rapid iteration and
continuous improvement based on user feedback and evolving
requirements. This iterative approach allows open-source software to
adapt quickly to changing needs and emerging technologies.
4. Cost-Effective Access to Expertise: Open-source software provides
access to a wealth of expertise and knowledge from developers worldwide
who contribute to the project. Users can benefit from the collective
expertise of the community without the need for costly licensing fees or
vendor lock-in.
5. Customization and Flexibility: Open-source software offers greater
customization and flexibility compared to proprietary alternatives, allowing
users to tailor the software to their specific needs and preferences. This

9|Page
 flexibility can lead to increased user satisfaction and effectiveness in
diverse use cases.
6. Security Through Transparency: The transparency of open-source code
enables security experts to review and identify vulnerabilities, reducing the
risk of security breaches and providing greater assurance of software
security. Additionally, the rapid response to security issues within the
open-source community helps mitigate risks more effectively.
While these factors contribute to the perceived quality and effectiveness of open-
source software, it is important to recognize that not all open-source projects are
of equal quality, and the effectiveness of any software depends on various
factors, including the skill and diligence of the development team, the project's
governance model, and the level of community engagement. Ultimately, the
decision to use open-source software should be based on a thorough evaluation
of its features, suitability for the intended purpose, and ongoing support and
maintenance.
Open source plays a significant role in business across various domains and
industries. Its impact can be observed in several key areas:
1. Cost Savings: Open-source software often eliminates the need for costly
licensing fees associated with proprietary solutions. This cost-saving
aspect is particularly appealing to businesses, especially startups and
small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), allowing them to allocate
resources more efficiently.
2. Innovation: Open-source projects foster innovation by enabling
collaboration among developers worldwide. Businesses can leverage
open-source solutions to access cutting-edge technologies, accelerate
development cycles, and stay ahead of competitors. Additionally, the
transparent nature of open-source code encourages experimentation and
the sharing of ideas.
3. Customization and Flexibility: Open-source software provides
businesses with the flexibility to customize and adapt solutions to meet
their specific needs and requirements. This customization capability
enables organizations to tailor software to their unique workflows,
processes, and business objectives, leading to increased efficiency and
productivity.
4. Vendor Neutrality: Open-source software mitigates the risk of vendor
lock-in, as businesses are not dependent on a single vendor for software

10 | P a g e
 support or updates. This vendor neutrality gives organizations more control
over their technology stack and reduces the potential impact of vendor-
related issues, such as price hikes or service disruptions.
5. Community Support and Collaboration: Open-source projects benefit
from a vibrant community of developers, users, and contributors who
provide support, share knowledge, and collaborate on software
development. This community-driven approach ensures that businesses
have access to a wealth of expertise and resources, including forums,
documentation, and user groups.
RELATED WORKS
Community Dynamics and Collaboration:
 Research by Crowston and Howison (2005) provides insights into
the dynamics of open source communities, highlighting the role of
governance structures and communication patterns.
 Bonaccorsi and Rossi (2003) examine collaboration mechanisms in
open source projects, emphasizing factors influencing participation
and retention.
Software Engineering Practices:
 A study by Rigby and German (2006) investigates version control
practices in open source development, emphasizing their impact on
code quality and maintainability.
 Dabbish et al. (2012) analyze the effectiveness of code review
processes in open source projects, highlighting their role in ensuring
software reliability and scalability.
Economic and Business Models:
 O'Mahony and Ferraro (2007) explore revenue models in open
source software, including dual licensing and support-based models,
and their implications for project sustainability.
 West and Gallagher (2006) examine the strategic use of open
source by businesses, focusing on factors influencing adoption
decisions and the management of open source assets.
Security and Trustworthiness:

11 | P a g e
  Zhu et al. (2018) conduct a vulnerability analysis of popular open
source projects, identifying common security issues and proposing
strategies for improving software security.
 German et al. (2014) develop automated tools for code auditing in
open source projects, enhancing the detection and resolution of
security vulnerabilities.
Legal and Licensing Issues:
 Fitzgerald and Shaikh (2008) analyze the legal implications of open
source licenses, highlighting the differences between copyleft and
permissive licenses and their impact on project governance.
 DiBona et al. (2005) discuss intellectual property issues in open
source software development, exploring strategies for managing
legal risks and ensuring license compliance.
Impact on Innovation and Society:
 Lakhani and Wolf (2005) examine the impact of open source on
innovation, highlighting its role in accelerating technological
advancement and fostering knowledge sharing.
 Ghosh et al. (2002) investigate the social benefits of open source
software, including its potential to promote digital inclusion and
empower communities through access to technology.
Case Studies and Empirical Research:
 Mockus et al. (2000) present a case study of the Apache web server
project, analyzing factors contributing to its success and lessons
learned from its development.
 Robles and Gonzalez-Barahona (2012) conduct empirical research
on the evolution of open source ecosystems, exploring patterns of
collaboration and innovation across different projects.
By drawing on insights from these articles, researchers and practitioners can
gain a deeper understanding of modern open source software development and
its implications for technology, business, and society.

12 | P a g e
ANALYSIS
Research method being used to study FOSS projects that is starting to gain
some traction involves use of hybrid schemes involving multiple research
methods. Two such efforts are those of Duchenaunt, Sack and colleagues
[Duchenaunt 2005, Sack et al. 2006], and Scacchi and associates [Jensen and
Scacchi 2005, Scacchi, Jensen, et al. 2006]. Both of these respective efforts
focus on collection of ethnographic data of sociotechnical interaction networks or
processes [cf. Duchenaunt 2005, Scacchi 2005] they discover in the FOSS
projects identified in their studies, using virtual ethnographic techniques and
computational data mining, modeling, and visualization tools. In a sense, these
multi-modal research methods seek to pull together the robust qualitative field
study methods used in ethnographic studies together with techniques employing
automated or 62 semi-automated data mining and validation tools in ways that
can be put into action by a small research group. However, these multi-modal
methods have not yet been applied to large samples of FOSS projects, and thus
it is unclear whether such methods can scale up to such challenge, or whether
some other mix of research methods will be needed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE:
The data presented in this seminar were collected from various reputable
sources, including scholarly articles, industry reports, and regulatory guidelines,
to provide a comprehensive overview of FOSSD techniques and challenges.
Information regarding FOSSD, its importance, benefits, challenges, and
techniques, as well as the concepts of data partitioning and clustering, was
gathered and synthesized from these sources.

13 | P a g e
Literature Review:
A thorough literature review was conducted to understand the fundamental
concepts of FOSSD, data partitioning, and clustering. This involved reviewing
peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, and online resources to gather insights into the
theoretical foundations and practical applications of these concepts in data
management and analysis.
Compilation of Information:
Information gathered from the literature review was compiled and organized to
provide a structured overview of FOSSD, including its definition, purpose,
benefits, challenges, and techniques.
Limitations and Constraints for FOSS Research
FOSSD is certainly not a panacea for developing complex software systems, nor
is it simply software engineering done poorly. Instead, it represents an alternative
communityintensive socio-technical approach to develop software systems,
artifacts, and social relationships. However, it is not without its limitations and
constraints. Thus, we should be able to help see these limits as manifest within
the level of analysis or research for empirical FOSSD studies examined above.
First, in terms of participating, joining, and contributing to FOSS projects, an
individual developer’s interest, motivation, and commitment to a project and its
contributors is dynamic and not indefinite. FOSS developers are loathe to find
themselves contributing to a project that is realizing commercial or financial
benefits that are not available to all contributors, or that are concentrated to
benefit a particular company, again without some share going to the contributors.
Some form of reciprocity seems necessary to sustain participation, whereas a
perception of exploitation by others can quickly dissolve a participant’s
commitment to further contribute, or worse to dissuade other participants to
abandon an open source project that has gone astray. If linchpin developers lose
interest, then unless another contributor comes forward to fill in or take over role
and responsibility for the communication and coordination activities of such key
developers, then the FOSS system may quickly become brittle, fragile, and
difficult to maintain. Thus, participation, joining, and contributing must become
sustained activities on an ongoing basis within FOSS projects for them to
succeed. 64 Second, in terms of cooperation, coordination, and control, FOSS
projects do not escape conflicts in technical decision-making, or in choices of
who gets to work on what, or who gets to modify and update what. As FOSS
projects generally lack traditional project managers, then they must become self-
reliant in their ability to mitigate and resolve outstanding conflicts and

14 | P a g e
disagreements. Beliefs and values that shape system design choices, as well as
choices over which software tools to use, and which software artifacts to produce
or use, are determined through negotiation rather than administrative
assignment. Negotiation and conflict management then become part of the cost
that FOSS developers must bear in order for them to have their beliefs and
values fulfilled. It is also part of the cost they bear in convincing and negotiating
with others often through electronic communications to adopt their beliefs and
values. Time, effort, and attention spent in negotiation and conflict management
are not spent building and improving source code, but they do represent an
investment in building and sustaining a negotiated socio-technical network of
dependencies. Third, in terms of forming alliances and building community
through participation, artifacts, and tools points to a growing dependence on
other FOSS projects. The emergence of non-profit foundations that were
established to protect the property rights of large multi-component FOSS projects
create a demand to sustain and protect such foundations. If a foundation
becomes too bureaucratic as a result to streamline its operations, then this may
drive contributors away from a project. So, these foundations need to stay lean,
and not become a source of occupational careers, in order to survive and evolve.
Similarly, as FOSS projects give rise to new types of requirements for community
building, community software, and community information sharing systems, 65
these requirements need to be addressed and managed by FOSS project
contributors in roles above and beyond those involved in enhancing the source
code of a FOSS project. FOSS alliances and communities depend on a rich and
growing web of socio-technical relations. Thus, if such a web begins to come
apart, or if the new requirements cannot be embraced and satisfied, then the
FOSS project community and its alliances will begin to come apart. Fourth, in
terms of the co-evolution of FOSS systems and community, as already noted,
individual and shared resources of people’s time, effort, attention, skill, sentiment
(beliefs and values), and computing resources are part of the socio-technical web
of FOSS. Reinventing existing software systems as FOSS coincides with the
emergence or reinvention of a community who seeks to make such system
reinvention occur. FOSS systems are common pool resources [Ostrom, Calvert,
and Eggerston 1990] that require collective action for their development,
mobilization, use, and evolution. Without the collective action of the FOSS project
community, the common pool will dry up, and without the common pool, the
community begins to fragment and disappear, perhaps to search for another pool
elsewhere. Last, empirical studies of FOSSD are expanding the scope of what
we can observer, discover, analyze, or learn about how large software systems
can be or have been developed. In addition to traditional methods used to
investigate FOSSD like reflective practice, industry polls, survey research, and
15 | P a g e
ethnographic studies, comparatively new techniques for mining software
repositories and multi-modal modeling and analysis of the socio-technical
processes and networks found in sustained FOSSD projects show that 66 the
empirical study of FOSSD is growing and expanding. This in turn will contribute
to and help advance the empirical science in fields like software engineering,
which previously were limited by restricted access to data characterizing large,
proprietary software development projects. Thus, the future of empirical studies
of software development practices, processes, and projects will increasingly be
cast as studies of FOSSD efforts.

CONCLUSION
Open source software is an important phenomenon that needs to deeply studied
and understood. Unfortunately, the discussion about open source software has
been carried out as a religious war by some, and simply ignored by others. This
paper is an attempt to provide a critical and scientific (even if qualitative and
preliminary) evaluation of the approach. The main conclusions that I have drawn
can be summarized as follows:
Most claims associated with open source and the related development process
are grounded in tangible evidence and merit consideration. While open source
has undeniably revolutionized the software industry, it is not without its
challenges and complexities. Through this critical evaluation, it becomes evident
that:
1. Community Collaboration is Key: The collaborative nature of open
source development fosters innovation, accelerates software evolution,
and promotes knowledge sharing. By harnessing the collective intelligence
of a diverse community of developers, open source projects can achieve
remarkable results that would be difficult to replicate within closed
environments.
2. Security and Reliability Are Addressable Concerns: While concerns
about security and reliability may arise due to the open nature of source
code, the collaborative review process and the sheer volume of eyes
scrutinizing the codebase often lead to rapid identification and resolution of
vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the transparent nature of open source
encourages accountability and fosters trust among users and contributors.
16 | P a g e
 3. Licensing and Governance Are Critical: The choice of open source
licenses and the establishment of clear governance structures are
essential considerations for the success of open source projects. Effective
licensing ensures that projects remain open and accessible to the
community, while robust governance frameworks facilitate decision-
making, dispute resolution, and long-term sustainability.
In conclusion, open source software represents a paradigm shift in software
development and distribution, offering unprecedented opportunities for
innovation, collaboration, and economic growth. By embracing open source
principles and engaging in constructive dialogue, stakeholders can harness the
full potential of this transformative approach to technology. It is imperative that
open source be studied and understood in a nuanced and objective manner, free
from ideological bias or misconceptions, to realize its full potential and maximize
its benefits for future generations.
RECCOMMENDATIONS
One of the defining characteristics of data about the FOSSD projects is that in
general it is publicly available on a global basis [Harrison 2001, Scacchi 2006a].
Data about FOSSD products, artifacts, and other resources is kept in repositories
associated with a project's Web site. This may include the site's content
management system, computer mediated communication systems (email,
persistent chat facilities, and discussion forums), software versioning or
configuration management systems, and networked file systems. FOSSD
process data is generally either extractable or derivable from data/content in
these artifact repositories. First-person data may also be available to those who
participate in a project, even if just to remotely observe (“lurk”) or to electronically
interview other participants about development activities, tools being used, the
status of certain artifacts, and the like. The availability of such data perhaps
suggest the a growing share of empirical software engineering research will be
performed in the domain of FOSSD projects, rather than using traditional sources
of data from in-house or proprietary software development projects. These
traditional non-FOSS projects will continue to have constraints on access and
publication. FOSSD process data collection from publicly accessible artifact
repositories may also be found to be more cost-effective compared to studies of
traditional closed-source, proprietary, and in-house software development
repositories [cf. Cook 1998].

17 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Antoniades, I. P., Samoladas, I., Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., & Bleris, G. L. (2005).
Dynamic simulation models of the open source development process. In S. Koch
(Ed.), Free/Open Source Software Development (pp. 174-202). Idea Group
Publishing.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms
markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
Bergquist, M., & Ljungberg, J. (2001). The power of gifts: Organizing social
relationships in open source communities. Information Systems Journal, 11, 305-
320.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual design: A customer-centered
approach to systems design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Bonaccorsi, A., & Rossi, C. (2006). Comparing motivations of individual
programmers and firms to take part in the open source movement: From
community to business. Knowledge Technology & Policy, 18(4), 40-64.
Capilupppi, A., Lago, P., & Morisio, M. (2003). Evidences in the evolution of OS
projects through changelog analyses. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Open
Source Software Engineering, Portland, OR.
Chen, K., Schach, S. R., Yu, L., Offutt, J., & Heller, G. (2004). Open source
change logs. Empirical Software Engineering, 9(2), 197-210.
18 | P a g e
Ciborra, C. (2004). The labyrinths of information: Challenging the wisdom of
systems. Oxford University Press.
Cook, J. E., Votta, L. G., & Wolf, A. L. (1998). Cost-effective analysis of in-place
software processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(8), 650-
663.
Crowston, K., & Howison, J. (2006). Hierarchy and centralization in free and
open source software team communications. Knowledge Technology & Policy,
18(4), 65-85.
DiBona, C., Cooper, D., & Stone, M. (2005). Open sources 2.0. O’Reilly Media.
DiBona, C., Ockman, S., & Stone, M. (Eds.). (1999). Open sources: Voices from
the open source revolution. O’Reilly Media.
Ducheneaut, N. (2005). Socialization in an open source software community: A
socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(4), 323-
368.
Ebenau, R. G., & Strauss, S. H. (1994). Software inspection process. McGraw-
Hill.
Elliott, M. S. (2006). Examining the success of computerization movements in the
ubiquitous computing era: Free and open source software movements. In K. L.
Kraemer & M. Elliott (Eds.), Computerization movements and technology
diffusion: From mainframes to ubiquitous computing. Information Today, Inc.
Elliott, M., & Scacchi, W. (2003). Free software developers as an occupational
community: Resolving conflicts and fostering collaboration. Proceedings of the
ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, 21-30.
Elliott, M., & Scacchi, W. (2005). Free software development: Cooperation and
conflict in a virtual organizational culture. In S. Koch (Ed.), Free/Open Source
Software Development (pp. 152-172). Idea Group Publishing.
Elliott, M., & Scacchi, W. (2006). Mobilization of software developers: The free
software movement.

19 | P a g e