Evolution patterns of open-source software systems and communities
Abstract
Open-Source Software (OSS) development is regarded as a successful model of encouraging "natural product evolution". To understand how this "natural product evolution" happens, we have conducted a case study of four typical OSS projects. Unlike most previous studies on software evolution that focus on the evolution of the system per se, our study takes a broader perspective: It examines not only the evolution of OSS systems, but also the evolution of the associated OSS communities, as well as the relationship between the two types of evolution.Through the case study, we have found that while collaborative development within a community is the essential characteristic of OSS, different collaboration models exist, and that the difference in collaboration model results in different evolution patterns of OSS systems and communities. To treat such differences systematically, we propose to classify OSS into three types: Exploration-Oriented, Utility-Oriented, and Service-Oriented. Such a classification can provide guidance on the creation and maintenance of sustainable OSS development and communities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Participation models such as the onion model and the core-periphery model become less hierarchical and more situational, as members can be peripheral in times of stability but become central agents during times of instability.
“Accordingly, participation models such as the onion model (Nakakoji et al. 2002;Crowston and Howison 2005) and the core-periphery model (Mockus et al. 2002;Crowston et al. 2006) become less hierarchical and more situational, as members can be in peripheral positions in times of stability but become central agents during times of instability.”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Nakakoji et al. 2002
Both internal members (vendors and project contributors) and peripheral members (project users and open source foundations) can create collective action threats through situational and cross-project changes in member positions.
“In this, our research highlights how both internal members (i.e., vendors and project contributors) and peripheral members (i.e., project users and open source foundations) can create collective action threats though situational and cross-project changes in member positions (Nakakoji et al. 2002;Crowston et al. 2006).”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Nakakoji et al. 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Foster, D., & Germonprez, M. (2026) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.70060
- Authors
- Nakakoji, K., Yamamoto, Y., Nishinaka, Y., Kishida, K., & Ye, Y.
- Affiliations
- Japan Science and Technology Agency (JP)
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP)
- Software Research Associates (Japan) (JP)
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- ORCID
- Nakakoji, Kumiyo
- Venue
- Proceedings of the international workshop on Principles of software evolution - IWPSE '02
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2002
- OpenAlex
- W4233189665
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (publishedVersion)
- 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 software, software evolution, open source communities, collaborative development, collaboration models, service-oriented software
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
