Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Open source projects carry the opportunity for open source project members to collectively respond to perceived challenges and problems within a project.

“Open source projects carry the opportunity for open source project members to collectively respond to perceived challenges and problems within a project (Benkler 2006;Schweik and English 2013).”

• cites Benkler 2006Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Schweik and English 2013 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

A vendor can make unilateral governance changes, which can increase the chances of a vendor-determined licence change.

“In this, a vendor can make unilateral governance changes, which can increase the chances of, for example, a vendor-determined licence change (Nyman et al. 2012;Osborne et al. 2024).”

• cites Nyman et al. 2012 sourcePartly supported

  Section 3, “Code Forking,” describes a company shepherding a project making decisions against the community’s interests and gives a separate example of developers changing a project’s licence. It does not say that unilateral governance changes increase the likelihood of a vendor-determined licence change. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Osborne et al. 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Hard forks can serve as the invisible hand of sustainability that ensures that code remains open and that the code that best serves the community lives on.

“Hard forks can serve 'as the invisible hand of sustainability that ensures that code remains open and that the code that best serves the community lives on.The mere option to fork provides a mechanism for safeguarding against despotic decisions by the project lead' (Nyman et al. 2012, 1).”

• cites Nyman et al. 2012 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Hard forks are different from social forks popularized by GitHub, which are often used for collaboration while contributing to the original project using a pull request model.

“Hard forks are different from social forks popularized by GitHub, which are often used for collaboration while contributing to the original project using a pull request model (Negoita et al. 2019;Zhou et al. 2020;Overhage and Widjaja 2022).”

• cites Negoita et al. 2019Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Zhou et al. 2020 sourceSupported
• cites Overhage and Widjaja 2022Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Vendor control of an open source project is a position where a single vendor has unilateral control over key project governance practices.

“Vendor control of an open source project is a position where a single vendor has unilateral control over key project governance practices (Shaikh and Vaast 2016;Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017).”

• cites Shaikh and Vaast 2016 sourcePartly supported

  The discussion of governance (p. 7) describes layers of access and elite maintainers, while “Process of Siphoning – Privileged policymaking” (p. 22) describes high-level decisions made in spaces accessible only to a privileged few. Neither passage establishes that a single vendor has unilateral control over those governance practices. (LLM, conf=0.77)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Shaikh and Henfridsson 2017 sourcePartly supported

  The Autocratic Clearing section describes a single actor controlling access and making significant project decisions. Its example is Torvalds in the Linux Kernel, not a vendor; the paper does not establish the claimed definition of vendor control or unilateral vendor authority over key governance practices. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

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.”

• cites Gamalielsson and Lundell 2014 sourcePartly supported

  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

May combine two claims.

Hard forks represent a significant shock to an open source project, yet provide a path towards sustainability through the continuance of the resources that were initially developed in the original project.

“the multifacetedness of hard forks remains a bit of a paradox in open source as they represent a significant shock to an open source project, yet provide a path towards sustainability (Nyman et al. 2012;Acquatella et al. 2024) through the continuance of the resources that were initially developed in the original project (Karhu et al. 2018(Karhu et al. , 2020)).”

• cites Nyman et al. 2012 sourceSupported
• cites Acquatella et al. 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Karhu et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

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.”

• cites Gamalielsson and Lundell 2014 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

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.”

• cites Gamalielsson and Lundell 2014 sourcePartly supported

  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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Open source projects can simultaneously incorporate meritocratic and autocratic modes of governance, and tensions can arise from how authority is allocated and exercised within an open source project.

“This configuration is consistent with Shaikh and Henfridsson's (2017) observation that open source projects can simultaneously incorporate meritocratic and autocratic modes of governance, and O'Mahony and Ferraro's (2007) observation that tensions can arise from how authority is allocated and exercised within an open source project.”

• cites Shaikh and Henfridsson's (2017) sourceSupported
• cites O'Mahony and Ferraro's (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The research does not address the long-term sustainability of any of the investigated projects.

“Finally, our research does not address the long-term sustainability of any of the investigated projects (Mindel et al. 2018;Curto-Millet and Corsin Jimenez 2023).”

• cites Mindel et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Curto-Millet and Corsin Jimenez 2023 sourceCould not verify

  The cited paper’s Introduction (p. 763) describes a critical literature review, and its Discussion and research agenda discusses how open-source sustainability unfolds over time. Neither passage addresses whether the citing authors’ research investigated the long-term sustainability of its projects; “our research” refers to the citing authors’ own study. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

There is always the potential for negative impacts for projects that are relicensed because of a loss of contributors and the loss of users.

“There always lies the potential for negative impacts for projects that are relicensed because of a loss of contributors and the loss of users, and vendors can consider those potential losses against any potential benefits they aim to achieve from a relicensing event (Riehle 2023).”

• cites Riehle 2023 sourcePartly supported

  In DISCRIMINATORY LICENSES (page unavailable), Riehle says vendors relicense when they need the goodwill of open source less and prioritize profitability. FROM THE EDITOR (page unavailable) says vendor control of contributions discourages developers. Neither passage says relicensing causes projects to lose contributors or users, or that vendors weigh those specific losses against its benefits. (LLM, conf=0.75)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Project practices can be used to define patterns of work.

“We demonstrated that while project practices can be used to define patterns of work (Wenger 1998;Yavuz et al. 2022;Shaikh and Vaast 2016)”

• cites Wenger 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Yavuz et al. 2022 sourceSupported
• cites Shaikh and Vaast 2016 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

Even 2 years prior to the 2021 relicensing event, Elasticsearch community members, particularly those from Amazon Web Services (AWS), expressed concerns about project openness, leading AWS to create Open Distro for Elasticsearch (ODFE), a distribution of Elasticsearch, not a hard fork.

“However, even 2 years prior to the 2021 relicensing event, the Elasticsearch community members, particularly those from Amazon Web Services (AWS), a subsidiary owned by Amazon, expressed concerns about project openness leading AWS to create open distro for elasticsearch (ODFE), a distribution of Elasticsearch, not a hard fork”

May combine two claims.

Elasticsearch was an open source project under the Apache 2.0 licence until February 2021, when Elastic relicensed it to the Server Side Public Licence (SSPL) and the Elastic Licence, neither of which are recognized by the OSI.

“Elasticsearch was an open source project under the Apache 2.0 licence until February 2021 when the project was relicensed to the Server Side Public Licence (SSPL) and the Elastic Licence-neither of which are recognized by the OSI.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

OpenSearch and OpenTofu both had more stars and social forks than OpenSearch Dashboards and OpenBao respectively.

“In this, OpenSearch and OpenTofu both had more stars (similar to social media likes) and social forks (as differentiated earlier from hard forks) than OpenSearch Dashboards and OpenBao respectively.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The forked project cleaned up origin project references in the forked repository.

“Forked project cleaned up origin project references in forked repository”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The hard fork created ecosystem disruption.

“Ecosystem disruption created by the hard fork”

May combine two claims.

Valkey had a diverse set of contributors from a variety of companies, with Amazon having the most contributors.

“There was a diverse set of contributors from a variety of companies, with Amazon having the most contributors.”

May combine two claims.

The initial Valkey charter and governance documents specified openness and a technical steering committee responsible for oversight of all technical, project, approval, and policy matters, focusing on a distributed and open decision-making process.

“The initial Valkey charter and governance documents specified openness and a TSC that 'is responsible for oversight of all technical, project, approval, and policy matters for Valkey', 18 focusing on a distributed and open decision making process.”

May combine two claims.

Valkey was forked from Redis 7.2.4 in March 2024 as a Linux Foundation project under the BSD-3 licence, driven by a group of people who had previously contributed to the Redis project with public support from their employers.

“Valkey was forked from Redis 7.2.4 in March 2024 as a Linux Foundation project under the BSD-3 licence driven by a group of people who had previously contributed to the Redis project with public support from their employers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

In all three cases, vendors made accusations of a freeriding collective action threat.

“Accusations of freeriding collective action threat by vendor in all cases”

May combine two claims.

The OpenTofu hard fork was driven by a group of Terraform users from a variety of companies, but there were no contributors to OpenTofu who had previously contributed to Terraform.

“The hard fork was driven by a group of Terraform users from a variety of companies, but there were no contributors”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Hard forks were created as part of a rebellion by members of the original project.

“Hard forks created as part of a rebellion by members of the original project”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Valkey community spent time cleaning up old traces of Redis.

“The Valkey community, like the other cases, spent time cleaning up the old traces of Redis”

May combine two claims.

Most of the Google employees' additions and deletions in Valkey (~28K additions and ~30K deletions) can be attributed to two pull requests related to formatting changes, making the Google data misleading.

“Of note is that the Google data is a bit misleading because, while Google employees made a large percentage of additions and deletions, most of those changes (~28 K additions and ~30 K deletions) can be attributed to two pull requests, which were related to formatting changes.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Industry participants, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud, Oracle, Ericsson, and Snap Inc., are supporting Valkey.

“Industry participants, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud, Oracle, Ericsson, and Snap Inc. are supporting Valkey.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

This single forum post received over 60 replies, indicating interest in this topic within the ODFE community.

“This single forum post received over 60 replies, indicating interest in this topic within the ODFE community”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Valkey project has already assembled a technical leadership committee of several former Redis contributors, and hundreds more community members have voiced their intent to support Valkey.

“The project has already assembled a technical leadership committee of several former Redis contributors, and hundreds more community members have voiced their intent to support Valkey.”

May combine two claims.

In response to the Terraform relicensing, an OpenTofu manifesto was created asking HashiCorp to revert the licence back to open source, and the manifesto had support from over 100 companies and 1000 individuals just prior to the OpenTofu hard fork.

“In response, an OpenTofu manifesto was created, asking for HashiCorp to revert the licence back to open source.The manifesto had support from over 100 companies and 1000 individuals just prior to the OpenTofu hard fork”

May combine two claims.

Only two people who did not work for Amazon made 10 or more commits to OpenSearch in the first year of the hard fork, making up 7% of additions and 4% of deletions.

“Only two people who did not work for Amazon made 10 or more commits, making up 7% of additions and 4% of deletions.”

May combine two claims.

There were nine people who contributed to Elasticsearch in the year before the relicensing event who later contributed to OpenSearch, of which five were Amazon employees.

“There were nine people who contributed to Elasticsearch in the year before the relicensing event who later contributed to OpenSearch, of which five were Amazon employees.”

May combine two claims.

Vendor-led changes in boundary regulation and the lack of incremental adaptation are both tied to the creation of the rebellion collective action threat.

“resultant changes to governance practices, as seen in vendor-led changes in boundary regulation and the lack of incremental adaptation, are both tied to the creation of the rebellion collective action threat.”

May combine two claims.

In the Redis → Valkey case, change was tied to central positions within the original project, and the hard fork became an extension of existing contribution efforts.

“In this case, change was tied to central positions within the original project, and the hard fork became an extension of existing contribution efforts.”

May combine two claims.

The preceding collective action threat of freeriding and the accompaniment of a lack of incremental adaptation were unique, as vendors made changes to boundary regulation without the 'mutual adjustments' of other community members.

“Unique was the preceding collective action threat (i.e., freeriding) as well as the accompaniment of a lack of incremental adaptation, as vendors made changes to boundary regulation without the 'mutual adjustments' of other community members (Mindel et al. 2018, 609).”

• cites Mindel et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The OpenTofu team vehemently disagrees with any suggestion that it misappropriated, mis-sourced, or otherwise misused HashiCorp's BSL code, and states that all such statements have zero basis in fact.

“The OpenTofu team vehemently disagrees with any suggestion that it misappropriated, mis-sourced, or otherwise misused HashiCorp's BSL code.All such statements have zero basis in fact, the OpenTofu team responded on its website.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

At Elasticsearch, in the project's GitHub Issues, they announced that following the hard fork there would no longer be an Elasticsearch open source distribution, cementing the project on a new path based on the licence change.

“At Elasticsearch, in the project's GitHub Issues they announced that, following the hard fork, there would no longer be an Elasticsearch open source distribution, cementing the project on a new path based on the licence change”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

In one case, members responded to the lack of incremental adaptation and change in boundary regulation by requesting a revert to an open source licence via the OpenTofu Manifesto.

“Request to revert to an open source licence via OpenTofu Manifesto”

May combine two claims.

Six people who did not work for Amazon made 10 or more commits in the final year before OpenSearch moved to the Linux Foundation, making up 11% of additions and 13% of deletions, so participation from outside of Amazon was increasing.

“Six people who did not work for Amazon made 10 or more commits, making up 11% of additions and 13% of deletions, so participation from outside of Amazon was increasing.”

May combine two claims.

Employees of companies other than Redis made almost twice as many commits as Redis employees in the year before the relicense, from about a dozen people who made substantial contributions, although Redis employees made more additions and deletions due to a small number of very large change sets.

“While Redis employees made more additions and deletions (which were inflated by a small number of very large change sets), employees of other companies made almost twice as many commits from about a dozen people who made substantial contributions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Many of the earliest issues in the Valkey project focused on feature development and fixing problems.

“many of the earliest issues in the Valkey project were focused on feature development and fixing problems (Figure 29).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Vendors accused members of taking advantage of and financially benefiting from vendor project work in the original project.

“Members taking advantage of and financially benefiting from vendor project work in the original project”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

At the Linux Foundation, Valkey will follow an open governance model, remaining community-driven and welcoming of all users and contributors.

“At the Linux Foundation, Valkey will follow an open governance model, remaining community-driven and welcoming of all users and contributors.”

May combine two claims.

Across the three cases, components of the original project were relicensed by vendors, and members expressed concerns about openness.

“Components of the original project were being relicensed by vendors and expressed concerns of openness by members.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The rebellion was created mostly by non-contributors to the original project.

“Rebellion created mostly by non-contributors to original project”

May combine two claims.

By inspecting the repository history using the GitHub API, the Elasticsearch repository was forked into a new OpenSearch repository by AWS on January 29, 2021, but the new OpenSearch repository was not made public until April 2021.

“By inspecting the repository history using the GitHub API, the Elasticsearch repository was forked into a new OpenSearch repository by AWS on January 29, 2021, but the new OpenSearch repository was not made public until April 2021”

May combine two claims.

Redis was an open source project under the BSD-3 licence until March 2024, when Redis Inc. relicensed it under the Redis Source Available licence (RSALv2) and the SSPLv1, neither of which are open source licences recognized by the OSI.

“Redis was an open source project under the BSD-3 licence until March 2024 when the project was relicensed under the Redis Source Available licence (RSALv2) and the SSPLv1-neither of which are open source licences recognized by the OSI.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In one case, the hard fork was first hosted by Amazon and later moved to the Linux Foundation.

“Hard fork first hosted by Amazon then later moved to the linux foundation”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Additional issues in the Valkey project included feature development and discussions about the roadmap.

“Additional issues included feature development and discussions about the roadmap of Valkey.”

May combine two claims.

In the first 6 months of the Valkey hard fork, Valkey had 52 contributors employed at 13 companies, and 22 of them had previously contributed to Redis and were now contributing to Valkey.

“Valkey had 52 people employed at 13 companies in the first 6 months of the hard fork, and 22 of those people previously contributed to Redis and were now contributing to Valkey.”

May combine two claims.

Terraform was under the open source Mozilla Public Licence v2.0 (MPL 2.0) until August 2023, when HashiCorp relicensed it to the Business Source Licence (BSL), which is not an open source licence recognized by the OSI.

“Terraform was under the open source Mozilla Public Licence v2.0 (MPL 2.0) until August 2023 when the vendor, HashiCorp, relicensed it to the Business Source Licence (BSL), which is not an open source licence recognized by the OSI”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Not long after the hard fork, OpenTofu first joined the Linux Foundation as an independent project and then later joined the Linux Foundation's Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF).

“Not long after, OpenTofu first joined the Linux Foundation as an independent project and then later joined the Linux Foundation's Cloud Native Computing Foundation (Figure 17):”

The quote only partly states this claim.

During the year after the OpenTofu hard fork was hosted at the Linux Foundation, contributions to OpenTofu came from 31 people at 11 organizations.

“During this year, the contributions to OpenTofu came from 31 people at 11 organizations.”

May combine two claims.

In all cases, charter and governance documents and technical steering committees were established.

“Establishment of charter and governance documents and technical steering committees in all cases”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

In all three cases, vendors showed a lack of incremental adaptation and change in boundary regulation governance.

“Lack of Incremental adaptation and change in boundary regulation governance by vendors in all cases”

May combine two claims.

The initial OpenTofu charter and governance documents specified the responsibilities and procedures for technical contribution to and oversight of the OpenTofu open source project through a community-representative TSC, and were authored by community members from top contributing organizations including Env0, Scalr, Spacelift, and Harness.

“The initial OpenTofu charter and governance documents specified 'the responsibilities and procedures for technical contribution to, and oversight of, the OpenTofu open source project' 14 through a community-representative TSC.These initial documents specified OpenTofu as an open source project and were authored by a variety of community members from top contributing organizations to the OpenTofu”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

In all three cases, community members posed a rebellion collective action threat.

“Rebellion collective action threat by community members in all cases”

May combine two claims.

In the hard forks, open source project charter and governance documents were formed along with a community member representative technical steering committee.

“Formation of open source project charter and governance documents along with a community member representative technical steering committee in the hard forks”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The original project vendor issued a cease and desist against the forked project.

“Cease and desist against forked project by original project vendor”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In some cases, the hard fork was immediately hosted at the Linux Foundation.

“Hard fork immediately hosted at the linux foundation”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

In time, OpenTofu grew to have 26,000 GitHub stars and several high-profile adopters including Oracle, GitLab, and VMware.

“In time, OpenTofu grew to have 26 000 GitHub stars and several high-profile adopters including Oracle, GitLab, and VMware.”

May combine two claims.

The OpenSearch hard fork was derived from Elasticsearch 7.10.2, which was under the Apache 2.0 licence, and OpenSearch was also licensed under Apache 2.0.

“The OpenSearch hard fork was derived from Elasticsearch 7.10.2,which was under the Apache 2.0 licence, and OpenSearch was also licensed under Apache 2.0.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The original project vendor created technical incompatibility.

“Technical incompatibility created by the original project vendor”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

In all cases, there was post-hard-fork project clean up.

“Post hard fork project clean up in all cases”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Redis Inc. believed other companies were freeriding and not putting in the same amount of effort into the development of Redis.

“who they believed were freeriding and not putting in the same amount of effort into the development of Redis.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The study's research demonstrated a set of challenges and their relationships as found in the collective action threats and governance practices of open source projects.

“Our research demonstrated a set of these challenges and their relationships as found in the collective action threats and governance practices of open source projects.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The new Redis module licence would put restrictions on commercial use, making it more difficult for other companies to compete with Redis Inc.

“the new licence would put restrictions on commercial use, making it more difficult for other companies to compete with Redis Inc.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

In the case of Redis and Valkey, the hard fork created a new option for high-performance key/value datastores.

“For example, in the case of Redis and Valkey, the hard fork created a new option for high-performance key/value datastores.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

In some cases, project governance practices can be changed by a single vendor (i.e., autocracy), effectively altering boundary regulation, incremental adaptation, shared accountability, or provider recognition at a moment's notice.

“In some cases, project governance practices can be changed by a single vendor (i.e., autocracy), effectively altering boundary regulation, incremental adaptation, shared accountability, or provider recognition at a moment's notice.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

While hard forks are a freedom associated with open source licensed software, they are a disruption that should be avoided whenever possible.

“They illustrated that while hard forks are a freedom associated with open source licensed software, they are a disruption that should be avoided whenever possible (Robles and González-Barahona 2012).”

• cites Robles and González-Barahona 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Recently, a pattern of relicensing has occurred with several projects relicensed by vendors from open source licences recognized by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to licences that are not.

“Recently, a pattern of relicensing has occurred with several projects relicensed by vendors from open source licences recognized by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) 1 to licences that are not.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Hard forks cannot always be avoided, they are a relatively new phenomenon despite platforms like GitHub lowering the bar and making it easier for people to create them.

“While hard forks cannot always be avoided, they are a relatively new phenomenon despite platforms like GitHub lowering the bar and making it easier for people to create them (Businge et al. 2022).”

• cites Businge et al. 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

With the creation of open source licences, came the opportunity to hard fork open source projects, an event related to the collective action threat of rebellion.

“With the creation of open source licences, came the opportunity to hard fork open source projects, an event related to the collective action threat of rebellion (Mindel et al. 2018).”

• cites Mindel et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Our immersion did not produce new data but provided the capacity by which relevant information was identified and how that information was tied together across the netnographic cases.

“Accordingly, our immersion did not produce new data but provided the capacity by which relevant information was identified and how that information was tied together across the netnographic cases.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The three cases share a parallel structure that enabled us to explore collective action threats and governance practices across more than one case.

“Taken together, the cases share a parallel structure that enabled us to explore collective action threats and governance practices across more than one case.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Immersion improved confidence in the selection of materials used in the netnographic cases.

“First, immersion improved confidence in the selection of materials used in the netnographic cases.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Robles and González-Barahona (2012) found only 13 hard forks prior to 1998.

“Robles and González-Barahona (2012) found only 13 hard forks prior to 1998.”

• cites Robles and González-Barahona 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Immersion allowed us to construct coherent accounts of how the online data related to one another.

“Second, immersion allowed us to construct coherent accounts of how the online data related to one another.”

May combine two claims.

Freeriding accusations become the justification for unilateral, non-incremental adaptation to a project's boundary regulation, and these governance changes are tied to rebellion as project members reposition themselves within shifting open source landscapes and realign their future open source project engagements.

“Our research provides theoretical and practical implications that show how freeriding accusations become the justification for unilateral, non-incremental adaptation to a project's boundary regulation and how these governance changes are tied to rebellion as project members reposition themselves within shifting open source landscapes and realign their future open source project engagements.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Evaluating commits together with lines of code added and deleted provided a more complete picture of code contribution activity, offsetting weakness that either may have alone.

“Evaluating commits together with lines of code added and deleted provided a more complete picture of code contribution activity, offsetting weakness that either may have alone.”

May combine two claims.

While open source projects that move from an OSI recognized licence to a non-OSI recognized licence with an accompanying hard fork are still rare, vendor relicensing events have become more common since 2018 when MongoDB relicensed their open source project.

“While open source projects that move from an OSI recognized licence to a non-OSI recognized licence with an accompanying hard fork are still rare, vendor relicensing events have become more common since 2018 when MongoDB relicensed their open source project (Walli 2024).”

• cites Walli 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Collective action threats, effects impacting the overall functioning and sustainability of a respective project, may exist in relation to changing governance practices.

“Accordingly, collective action threats, effects impacting the overall functioning and sustainability of a respective project, may exist in relation to changing governance practices (Mindel et al. 2018).”

• cites Mindel et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

There was no missing data from the complication of commits pushed directly to a Git repository without a GitHub login, because in every occurrence the person could be matched to a GitHub login by matching commit email addresses.

“However, this happened rarely in our cases, and in every occurrence, the person could be matched to a GitHub login by matching the commit email address with another commit that used GitHub and had a login associated with it, so there was no missing data from this complication”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

As governance practices are used to enable and constrain action, member reaction towards them is often unknown and it is in this unknown that activity occurs, meaning is derived, and collective action threats can reside.

“As governance practices are used to enable and constrain action, member reaction towards them is often unknown and it is in this unknown that activity occurs, meaning is derived, and collective action threats can reside (Wenger 1998;Dourish 2001;Feldman and Orlikowski 2011;Mindel et al. 2018).”

• cites Wenger 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Dourish 2001 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Feldman and Orlikowski 2011 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Together, collective action threats and governance practices work in concert to determine the sustainability of open source projects.

“Together, collective action threats and governance practices work in concert to determine the sustainability of open source projects.”

• cites Mindel et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Many popular open source projects are controlled by vendors, and in changing economic settings, those vendors are often under pressure from investors to deliver strong returns on their investments.

“Many popular open source projects are controlled by vendors, and in changing economic settings, those vendors are often under pressure from investors to deliver strong returns on their investments (Chua 2017;Chua and Zhang 2020;Sokiyna and Sharma 2024).”

• cites Chua 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Chua and Zhang 2020 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Sokiyna and Sharma 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Hard forks can be motivated by legal disputes, technical differences, and vendor competition.

“While hard forks can be motivated by legal disputes (Businge et al. 2022), technical differences (Overhage and Widjaja 2022), and vendor competition (Karhu et al. 2020), the multifacetedness of hard forks remains a bit of a paradox in open source as they represent a significant shock to an open source project, yet provide a path towards sustainability (Nyman et al. 2012;Acquatella et al. 2024) th”

• cites Businge et al. 2022 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Overhage and Widjaja 2022Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Karhu et al. 2020Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Code contribution activity was not the variable under investigation but served as the open source project activity metric from which changes in organizational diversity were determined across projects.

“Importantly, code contribution activity was not our variable under investigation, but it served as the open source project activity metric from which we determined changes in organizational diversity across projects.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

All three cases occurred within a 3-year window.

“All three cases occurred within a 3-year window.”

May combine two claims.

Licences represent specific aspects of engagement; their creation is often purposeful, and they are subject to differing interpretations and action from project members.

“As licences represent specific aspects of engagement, their creation is often purposeful, and they are subject to differing interpretations and action from project members (Lyytinen et al. 2016).”

• cites Lyytinen et al. 2016 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The Terraform relicensing was a lack of incremental adaptation and a change to the boundary regulation governance by the vendor.

“Terraform was under the open source Mozilla Public Licence v2.0 (MPL 2.0) until August 2023 when the vendor, HashiCorp, relicensed it to the Business Source Licence (BSL), which is not an open source licence recognized by the OSI (a lack of incremental adaptation and a change to the boundary regulation governance by the vendor).”

May combine two claims.

The relicensing event made little difference in the organizational diversity of Elasticsearch because Elasticsearch never had a strong contributor base outside of Elastic employees.

“The relicensing event made little difference in the organizational diversity as Elasticsearch never had a strong contributor base outside of Elastic employees”

May combine two claims.

With no response from HashiCorp regarding the Manifesto and no return to an OSI-recognized licence, the collective action around OpenTofu resulted in a hard fork, a rebellion collective action threat created by community members.

“With no response from HashiCorp regarding the Manifesto and no return to an OSI-recognized licence, the collective action around OpenTofu resulted in a hard fork (a rebellion collective action threat created by community members)”

May combine two claims.

The AWS response was a rebellion collective action threat created by community members, culminating in a blog post on January 21, 2021, which announced that AWS would be forking Elasticsearch.

“The AWS response (a rebellion collective action threat created by community members) culminated in a blog post on January 21, 2021, which announced that AWS would be forking Elasticsearch”

May combine two claims.

Organizational diversity represents not only how open source project members respond to licensing and hard fork events, but also who has the capacity to affect change.

“Organizational diversity represents not only how open source project members respond to licensing and hard fork events, but also represents who has the capacity to affect change.”

May combine two claims.

The cases reveal a hybrid governance configuration in which authority over technical contributions and downstream use is distributed, but authority over project boundaries is concentrated in the vendor.

“As such, our cases reveal a hybrid governance configuration in which authority over technical contributions and downstream use is distributed, but authority over project boundaries is concentrated in the vendor.”

May combine two claims.

Collective action threats not only trigger changes in governance practices, but governance changes can themselves produce new collective action threats.

“We demonstrated that collective action threats not only trigger changes in governance practices, but that governance changes can themselves produce new collective action threats.”

May combine two claims.

Vendors are an underexamined actor in commons-based investigations of shared governance, and vendor authority can dramatically constrain and create collective action.

“Second, the sequence of events highlights vendors as an underexamined actor in commons-based investigations of shared governance, showing that vendor authority can dramatically constrain and create collective action.”

May combine two claims.

Only a week after the Redis relicensing, the Linux Foundation announced they were forking the project as Valkey, a rebellion collective action threat created by community members.

“Only a week after the relicensing, the Linux Foundation announced they were forking the project as Valkey (a rebellion collective action threat created by community members).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The one-year time window that was post hard fork was not enough to confidently speak to the long-term sustainability of either the original or the forked project.

“Specifically, the one-year time window that was post hard fork was not enough for us to confidently speak to the long-term sustainability of either the original or the forked project.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

If projects are put under non-OSI licences, contributors may no longer be willing or able to use their own contributions.

“If any of those projects are put under non-OSI licences, contributors may no longer be willing or able to use their own contributions.”

May combine two claims.

Governance practices and people's actions towards them can create project challenges, as alignment is never secured and participation is continually unfolding.

“As such, governance practices and people's actions towards them can create project challenges as alignment is never secured and participation is continually unfolding (Mindel et al. 2018;Sokiyna and Sharma 2024).”

• cites Mindel et al. 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Sokiyna and Sharma 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The research included three time-bound netnographic cases of open source projects tied to relicensing and hard fork events.

“Our research included three time-bound netnographic cases of open source projects tied to relicensing and hard fork events.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Organizations that need fast data access in their products can now consider technical alternatives such as Valkey in their own software supply chain.

“In this, organizations that need fast data access in their products can now consider technical alternatives (i.e., Valkey) in their own software supply chain (i.e., Fidelity Investments moving to Valkey).”

May combine two claims.

Open source project governance practices alone cannot make things happen; this is up to the community of people, as participation is found in giving meaning to these practices.

“Open source project governance practices alone cannot make things happen; this is up to the community of people, as 'participation is found in giving meaning' to these practices (Wenger 1998, 244).”

• cites Wenger 1998 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Understanding the potential concerns that might be avoided by selecting an open source project with greater organizational diversity and less vendor control requires time, effort, and resources, often in the form of legal review.

“All of this requires time, effort, and resources, often in the form of legal review, to understand the potential concerns that might be avoided by selecting an open source project with greater organizational diversity and less vendor control.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

If key open source technology being relied on by the public is no longer open, shifts are likewise required in software ecosystems intended to be built on openness.

“If key open source technology being relied on by the public is no longer open, shifts are likewise required in software ecosystems intended to be built on openness.”

May combine two claims.

The 2024 relicensing of the Redis project by Redis Inc. was a lack of incremental adaptation and a change to the boundary regulation governance by the vendor.

“(a lack of incremental adaptation and a change to the boundary regulation governance by the vendor) (Figure26).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

It is too early from the study's cases to understand the long-term sustainability of the investigated projects.

“While it is too early from our cases to understand the long-term sustainability of our investigated projects”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In the case of open source, beyond any one corporation's needs, there is a need for open source software as part of digital sovereignty strategies being embraced in geographies to reduce their reliance on large, proprietary technology firms.

“In the case of open source, beyond any one corporation's needs, there is a need for open source software as part of digital sovereignty strategies being embraced in geographies to reduce their reliance on large, proprietary technology firms.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The three cases were time-bound for the year prior to and the year following the hard fork.

“Our three cases were time-bound for the year prior to and the year following the hard fork.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Engagement with open source varies based on the audience and their interests.

“As such, our research demonstrates that engagement with open source varies based on the audience and their interests.”