PreprintCited by 4Open Source Software InnovationsDigital Platforms and EconomicsExpert finding and Q&A systems

Sponsorship Funding in Open-Source Software: Incentivize or Crowd-Out Motivations to Create, Maintain and Share?

Open access
Medappa, Poonacha K., Tunc, Murat M, Li, Xitong·2023·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of sponsorship-based funding on open-source software contributors' behavior. We examine how sponsorship impacts contributors' creation and maintenance activities on the host platform where funding is received, as well as the spillover effects on a complementary knowledge-sharing platform. While sponsorship is expected to increase overall effort, its effects on different contribution types and spillover to other platforms remain unclear. To address these questions, we analyze the impact of Github's sponsorship feature, introduced in 2019, on contribution behavior. Using individual-level panel data from both the host platform (Github or GH) and the complementary platform (Stack Overflow or SO), we employ a difference-in-differences estimation methodology. Our findings reveal that sponsorship funding increases maintenance-related activities (e.g., pull request reviews) while leaving creation activities (e.g., pull requests) unaffected, indicating an effort reallocation effect. Moreover, we observe a negative spillover on knowledge-sharing activities on SO, suggesting an effort distortion effect. Interestingly, this negative spillover is limited to knowledge-creation activities (e.g., answers and questions), while maintenance-related activities (e.g., edits and reviews) remain unaffected, evidence of an effort mirroring effect. We attribute these findings to motivational differences between creation and maintenance activities. Sponsorship funding appears to boost less rewarding activities such as maintenance of software, while intrinsically motivated creation activities remain largely unaffected. We further investigate the underlying mechanisms and observe a crowding-out effect on creation activities for contributors who are more involved with the OSS community. Our findings provide empirical evidence that sponsorship funding can be a powerful tool to incentivize maintenance-related activities in open-source software.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4484403

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Medappa, P. K., Tunc, M. M., & Li, X.
Affiliations
  • Tilburg University (NL)
  • HEC Paris (FR)
Corresponding author
Medappa, Poonacha K.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4381955850
Cited by
4
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
Keywords
open source software, contributor behavior, software maintenance, knowledge sharing, crowding out, intrinsic motivation, Stack Overflow, spillover effects

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