Cited by 125Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering Research

Sustainability of Open Source Software Communities Beyond a Fork: How and Why Has the LibreOffice Project Evolved?

Open access
Gamalielsson, Jonas, Lundell, Björn·2014·Journal of Systems and Software

Abstract

Many organisations are dependent upon long-term sustainable software systems and associated communities. In this paper we consider long-term sustainability of Open Source software communities in Open Source software projects involving a fork. There is currently a lack of studies in the literature that address how specific Open Source software communities are affected by a fork. We report from a study aiming to investigate the developer community around the LibreOffice project, which is a fork from the OpenOffice.org project. In so doing, our analysis also covers the OpenOffice.org project and the related Apache OpenOffice project. The results strongly suggest a long-term sustainable LibreOffice community and that there are no signs of stagnation in the LibreOffice project 33 months after the fork. Our analysis provides details on developer communities for the LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice projects and specifically concerning how they have evolved from the OpenOffice.org community with respect to project activity, developer commitment, and retention of committers over time. Further, we present results from an analysis of first hand experiences from contributors in the LibreOffice community. Findings from our analysis show that Open Source software communities can outlive Open Source software projects and that LibreOffice is perceived by its community as supportive, diversified, and independent. The study contributes new insights concerning challenges related to long-term sustainability of Open Source software communities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jss.2013.11.1077

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Vendor dominance and conflicts in the origin project arose due to inadequate working processes, lack of congruence concerning project goals, and unclear leadership, resulting in some members staying with the original project and some leaving to the hard fork.

    “They described how vendor dominance and 'conflicts in the origin project arose due to inadequate working processes, lack of congruence concerning project goals, and unclear (or in other ways inadequate) leadership' (p.129) resulted in the shuffling of some members staying with the original project and some leaving to the hard fork.”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Gamalielsson and Lundell 2014

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Gamalielsson and Lundell (2014) explored the window in time when a hard fork provided a path towards sustainability of the OpenOffice.org project.

    “Gamalielsson and Lundell (2014) explored the window in time when a hard fork provided a path towards sustainability of the OpenO ffice. org project.”

    From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Gamalielsson and Lundell 2014

    The Introduction and Discussion examine the OpenOffice.org-to-LibreOffice fork and find early indications of a sustainable LibreOffice community, including during a period when OpenOffice.org was inactive. But the paper describes OpenOffice.org as discontinued and does not say the fork made the OpenOffice.org project itself sustainable; its sustainability finding concerns the successor community. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The survival of open source can be challenged by internal threats instead of external ones.

    “Others yet see the survival of open source challenged by internal threats instead of external ones (Gamalielsson & Lundell, 2014).”

    From The sustainability of open source commons (2023) · cites this paper as Gamalielsson & Lundell, 2014

    Section 2, “On sustainable Open Source software communities” (page unavailable), says inadequate governance and conflicts over project goals or leadership can threaten community sustainability. It does not say these internal challenges arise instead of external ones; the same section also discusses risks such as patent litigation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The newly forked open source project, LibreOffice, enabled new forms of participation and the development of a new future in relation to prior experiences.

    “The newly forked open source project, LibreOffice, enabled new forms of participation and the development of a new future in relation to prior experiences.”
  • A hard fork created a branch to which members of the original project could join to help ensure the sustainability of open source artefacts.

    “In this, a hard fork created a branch to which members of the original project could join to help ensure the sustainability of open source artefacts.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bacon, J., 2009. The Art of Community. O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol.
  2. Brock, A., 2013. Understanding commercial agreements with open source compa- nies. In: Coughlan, S. (Ed.), Thoughts on Open Innovation -Essays on Open Innovation from Leading Thinkers in the Field. OpenForum Europe LTD for Open- Forum Academy, Brussels.
  3. Conlon, M.P., 2007. An examination of initiation, organization, participation, lead- ership, and control of successful Open Source software development projects. Information Systems Education Journal 5 (38), 1-13.
  4. IBM, 2011. IBM to Contribute to New, Proposed OpenOffice.org Project, http://www- 03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/34638.wss (accessed June 2013).
  5. Koponen, T., Lintula, H., Hotti, V., 2006. Defects reports in Open Source Software maintenance process -OpenOffice.org case study. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering Applications (SEA 2006), Dallas, TX, USA, 13-15 November.
  6. Marketwire, 2011a. Oracle Announces Its Intention to Move OpenOffice.org to a Community-Based Project, http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/ oracle-announces-its-intention-to-move-openofficeorg-to-a-community- based-project-nasdaq-orcl-1503027.htm (accessed June 2013).
  7. Marketwire, 2011b. Statements on OpenOffice.org Contribution to Apache, http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg- contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm (accessed June 2013).
  8. Oracle, 2010. Oracle Completes Acquisition of Sun, http://www.oracle. com/us/corporate/press/044428 (accessed June 2013).
  9. Robert, S., 2006. On-board software development -the open-source way. In: IST/ARTEMIS Workshop, Helsinki, 22 November.
  10. Seydel, J., 2009. OpenOffice.org: when will it be ready for prime time? In: Proceed- ings of the Southwest Decision Sciences Institute Conference (SWDSI), 25-28 February, Oklahoma city, Oklahoma, pp. 388-398.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gamalielsson, J., & Lundell, B.
Affiliations
University of Skövde (SE)
Corresponding author
Gamalielsson, Jonas
Venue
Journal of Systems and Software
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
89
Pages
128-145
ISSN
0164-1212 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029743492
Cited by
125
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6
FWCI
6.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Systems and Software (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
open source communities, software forks, LibreOffice, OpenOffice.org, community sustainability, developer communities, project activity, long-term sustainability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review