CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesDigital Platforms and Economics

Code Forking, Governance, and Sustainability in Open Source Software

Open access
Nyman, Linus, Lindman, Juho·2013·Technology Innovation Management Review
DOI 10.22215/timreview/644
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

IntroductionThis article addresses the question of how the right to fork open source projects – to use the source code of an existing program to start a new, independent version – works as a governance mechanism to provide sustainability in open source software. The concept of sustainability is under debate, with numerous rubrics against which the sustainability of a product

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This conceptual article argues that the right to fork open source code functions as a governance mechanism that helps ensure sustainability at the software, community, and ecosystem levels. It illustrates how forking counters planned obsolescence, gives communities an escape from unfavourable control, and enables innovation and commercialization.

Key findings

  • The right to fork is intrinsic to open source licensing and affects governance and sustainability on three levels: software, community, and business ecosystem.
  • On the software level, the right to fork makes planned obsolescence, versioning, vendor lock-in, and end-of-support issues “all but impossible” in open source; abandoned projects can also be revived, and of almost 400 forks studied by Nyman and Mikkonen (2011), 7% involved reviving an abandoned project.
  • On the community level, forking provides an escape hatch against hijacking or unfavourable corporate/project-leader actions, as illustrated by MySQL leading to MariaDB and OpenOffice leading to LibreOffice; a cited analysis of LibreOffice indicates a sustainable community with no signs of stagnation.
  • On the ecosystem level, forking acts as natural selection and a catalyst for innovation, enabling new distributions and business opportunities, such as Red Hat’s billion-dollar revenue and the many Linux distributions built from forked programs, or Jolla reviving MeeGo as Sailfish OS.

Methods

  • Conceptual/analytical article, not an empirical study; it synthesizes literature and examples to examine how code forking affects governance and sustainability across three levels.
  • Draws on secondary evidence and illustrative cases, including Nyman and Mikkonen’s (2011) dataset of almost 400 forks, MySQL/MariaDB, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, MeeGo/Sailfish OS, Red Hat, and Linux distributions.
  • No formal sampling, primary data collection, or statistical analysis is described.

Limitations

  • Stated: the authors simplified the categorization of forking for clarity; in actuality, the software, community, and ecosystem levels overlap.
  • Evident: there is no dedicated limitations section, and the conceptual synthesis relies on selected examples and secondary sources rather than a systematic empirical test or generalizable sample.
  • Evident: the examples are mostly high-profile projects, and the only quantitative fork outcome reported is the cited 7% revival figure from Nyman and Mikkonen (2011).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22215/timreview/644

Cites

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    The LibreOffice fork has resulted in a sustainable community with no signs of stagnation.

    “A recent analysis of the LibreOffice project indicates that this fork has resulted in a sustainable community with no signs of stagnation (Gamalielsson and Lundell, 2012; tinyurl.com/a9ev4hu).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gamalielsson and Lundell, 2012

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

  • Interpretationreasoning

    Forking, and even the mere possibility of forking code, affects the governance and sustainability of open source initiatives on three distinct levels: software, community, and ecosystem.

    “Forking, and even the mere possibility of forking code, affects the governance and sustainability of open source initiatives on three distinct levels: software, community, and ecosystem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    The openness combined with the granular composition of the software offer new ways of governance.

    “The openness combined with the granular composition of the software offer new ways of governance (Benkler, 2006;tinyurl.com/6ftot3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Benkler, 2006

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

  • Interpretationcitation

    Forking allows innovators to introduce new functionalities into the market.

    “Forking lays the building blocks for innovators to introduce new functionalities into the market”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Interpretationcitation

    The practice of forking allows for the development of a robust, responsive software ecosystem that is able to meet an abundance of demands.

    “Hence, the practice of forking allows for the development of a robust, responsive software ecosystem that is able to meet an abundance of demands (Nyman et al., 2012;tinyurl.com/acg3fp2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nyman et al., 2012

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 33
  • May combine two claims. 13

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is the right to fork that moulds the governance of open source projects and provides the dynamic vigour found in open source computing today.

    “It is the right to fork that moulds the governance of open source projects and provides the dynamic vigour found in open source computing today.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The right to fork code is intrinsic to open source software and is guaranteed by all open source licenses.

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

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Code Forking, Governance, and Sustainability in Open Source Software

    As long as there is sufficient community interest in a project, forking can allow for constant improvement in software functionality.

    “As long as there is sufficient community interest in a project, forking can allow for constant improvement in software functionality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Both a poorly handled community and an abandoned project can spawn a business ecosystem competitor.

    “Both a poorly handled community and an abandoned project can spawn a business ecosystem competitor.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    In recent years, the term forking has come to be used in a much broader context, encompassing all cases in which one takes an existing code base and implements it in a separate project.

    “has come to be used in a much broader context, encompassing all cases in which one takes an existing code base and implements it in a separate project (see, for instance, GitHub: tinyurl.com/7uc94sk).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites GitHub

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

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

    Premisecitation

    The potential to fork a program is 'the indispensable ingredient that binds developers together'.

    “Fogel notes that the potential to fork a program is “the indispensable ingredient that binds developers together”.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fogel, 2006

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

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The right to fork code is built into the very definition of what it means to be an open source program.

    “The right to fork code is built into the very definition of what it means to be an open source program.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Forking helps keep open source initiatives relevant and presents opportunities for the development and commercialization of current and abandoned programs.

    “Thus, forking helps keep open source initiatives relevant and presents opportunities for the development and commercialization of current and abandoned programs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    Forking cannot be prevented by business models or governance systems.

    “Forking cannot be prevented by business models or governance systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The shared ownership of open source projects allows anyone to fork a project at any time.

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

    Premisecitation

    Open source companies can be bought, but open source communities cannot.

    “Moody (2009; tinyurl.com/ cbrq7g) noted that, while open source companies can be bought, open source communities cannot.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moody, 2009

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The rights to improve a program, to combine many programs, and to make a program compatible with other programs and versions are often exercised in open source.

    “Research has shown these rights are often exercised (Fitzgerald, 2006; tinyurl.com/al995aj).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fitzgerald, 2006

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

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

    Interpretationnone given

    Better software can more easily attract a bigger community.

    “better software can more easily attract a bigger community.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    The potential of forking in open source software, particularly when coupled with a strong community, provides opportunities to avoid versioning and vendor lock-in to one provider.

    “When acquiring systems, the potential of forking in open source software -in particular when coupled with a strong community -provides opportunities to avoid versioning and vendor lock-in to one provider of a product or system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    One does not need to be an open source business to benefit from the right to fork.

    “However, one does not need to be an open source business to benefit from the right to fork.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Current projects can be forked.

    “Current projects can be forked”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    An abandoned project can become a business opportunity.

    “An abandoned project can become a business opportunity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    On a community level, code forking ensures sustainability by providing the community with an escape hatch: the right to start a new version of the program.

    “On a community level, code forking ensures sustainability by providing the community with an escape hatch: the right to start a new version of the program.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    This governance is not tied to over-appropriating a natural resource, but rather related to ways in which a group of developers, following institutional rules, collectively produce a public good.

    “This governance is not tied to over-appropriating a natural resource (Ostrom, 1991; tinyurl.com/b8rc2pu),but rather related to ways in which a group of developers, following institutional rules, collectively produce a public good (Schweik et al., 2010;tinyurl.com/aqxy2jp).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ostrom, 1991

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

    • cites Schweik et al., 2010

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

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Until recently, the term fork was mainly used to describe a situation in which a developer community had split into competing camps, each continuing work on their own, incompatible version of the software.

    “Until recently, the term fork was mainly used to describe a situation in which a developer community had split into competing camps, each continuing work on their own, incompatible version of the software”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Raymond, 1999

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

    • cites Fogel, 2006

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

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Forking can aid companies who choose to use an existing program, or develop it for personal use.

    “Forking can also aid companies who choose to use an existing program, or develop it for personal use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Michael Widenius forked the MySQL code and started MariaDB due to concerns regarding the governance and future openness of the MySQL code.

    “The original MySQL developer, Michael (“Monty”) Widenius, forked the MySQL code and started a new version under a different name, MariaDB, due to concerns regarding the governance and future openness of the MySQL code”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Widenius' blog

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

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    On an ecosystem level, forking serves as a core component of natural selection and as a catalyst for innovation.

    “Finally, on an ecosystem level, forking serves as a core component of natural selection and as a catalyst for innovation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The right to fork open source code is at the core of open source licensing.

    “The right to fork open source code is at the core of open source licensing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Jolla announced a contract with D. Phone on July 16, 2012, and launched Sailfish OS on November 21.

    “On July 16, 2012, Jolla announced a contract with D. Phone, one of the largest cell phone retailers in China, and on November 21 they launched Sailfish OS (tinyurl.com/a4yot8h).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites tinyurl.com/a4yot8h

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Abandoned projects can be revived and commercialized.

    “abandoned projects can be revived and commercialized”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    This right to fork has a significant effect on governance and helps ensure the sustainability of open source software.

    “This right to fork has a significant effect on governance and helps ensure the sustainability of open source software.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The right to fork code is intrinsic to open source software and is guaranteed by all open source licenses.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The possibility of forking any project affects the governance and sustainability of all open source programs.

    “The possibility of forking any project affects the governance and sustainability of all open source programs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The third criteria of the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition of open source states that the license must allow modifications and derived works.

    “The third criteria of the Open Source Initiative's (OSI; opensource.org/osd.html)definition of open source states that the license”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites OSI

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

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

    Interpretationcitation

    All spinoff initiatives can be considered forks as they are modified or derived (OSI) or copied, changed and improved.

    “All spinoff initiatives can be considered forks as they are”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites OSI

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

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

    Premisecitation

    In open source software, natural selection acts as a culling force, constantly choosing only the fittest code to survive.

    “Within the dynamic world of open source software, natural selection acts as a culling force, constantly choosing only the fittest code to survive (Torvalds, 2001; tinyurl.com/aaxqux7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Torvalds, 2001

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

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

    Interpretationnone given

    Neither business models nor governance systems can completely prevent forking.

    “Neither business models nor governance systems can completely prevent forking.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The right to fork code is intrinsic to open source software and is guaranteed by all open source licenses.

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

    Interpretationnone given

    On the community level, forking impacts both sustainability and governance through the power it grants the community to safeguard against unfavourable actions by corporations or project leaders.

    “On the community level, forking impacts both sustainability and governance through the power it grants the community to safeguard against unfavourable actions by corporations or project leaders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    On the business-ecosystem level forking can serve as a catalyst for innovation while simultaneously promoting better quality software through natural selection.

    “On the business-ecosystem level forking can serve as a catalyst for innovation while simultaneously promoting better quality software through natural selection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The negative tone found in discussions of forking has been related to concerns regarding the hindered progress, wasted resources, and potential demise of one or both of the projects.

    “Hence, the negative tone found in discussions of forking has been related to concerns regarding the hindered progress, wasted resources, and potential demise of one or both of the projects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    A strong community offers better insurance of sustainability of the software level.

    “a strong community offers better insurance of sustainability of the software level”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Open source software is increasingly developed and supported for commercial gains.

    “Open source software is free, but it is also increasingly developed and supported for commercial gains (Wheeler, 2009: timreview.ca/article/229).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wheeler, 2009

      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.

    Premisecitation

    Software is editable, interactive, reprogrammable, distributed, and open.

    “Software is editable, interactive, reprogrammable, distributed, and open (Kallinikos et al., 2010;tinyurl.com/4zn6cun).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kallinikos et al., 2010

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

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Programs can be combined in novel ways to better meet the needs of both the developers and end users.

    “programs can be combined in novel ways to better meet the needs of both the developers and end users.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
37 of 37

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The nature of the industry dictates that programs cannot maintain a stable steady state for an extended period of time.

    “The nature of the industry dictates that programs cannot maintain a stable steady state for an extended period of time.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Obsolescence need not creep into a project over time; it is often a design feature.

    “Although stagnation may be a precursor to obsolescence, obsolescence need not creep into a project over time; it is often a design feature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The shared ownership of open source projects allows anyone to fork a project at any time.

    “The shared ownership of open source projects allows anyone to fork a project at any time.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The open source definition includes the rights to improve a program, to combine many programs, and to make a program compatible with other programs and versions.

    “The right to improve a program, the right to combine many programs, and the right to make a program compatible with other programs and versions are all fundamental rights that are built into the very definition of open source.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 2008 acquisition of MySQL by Sun Microsystems and subsequent acquisition of Sun by Oracle occurred and involved community concern over potential hijacking.

    “The 2008 acquisition of MySQL (mysql.com),an open source relational database management system, by Sun Microsystems and subsequent acquisition of Sun by Oracle is an example of a case involving community concern over potential hijacking.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The right to fork code is intrinsic to open source software and is guaranteed by all open source licenses.

    “The right to fork code is intrinsic to open source software and is guaranteed by all open source licenses.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The requirement in open source to share one's source code is linked with distribution, not modification, so one can fork and modify a program for in-house use without having to supply the code to others.

    “The requirement in open source to share one's source code is linked with distribution, not modification, which means that one can fork a program and modify it for in-house use without having to supply the code to others.”
    “Keep in mind that it is distribution, not modification, that obligates the sharing of the source code.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are thousands of open source programs already in existence, which can be forked.

    “There are thousands of open source programs already in existence, which can be forked.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Online forges have hundreds of thousands of programs available for forking and reuse.

    “the plethora of online forges have hundreds of thousands of programs available for forking and reuse in any new, creative way the user can imagine”
    “Online forges offer a plethora of publically available programs that can serve as the building blocks of a new creation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Red Hat's programs are largely based on forks of programs by other developers.

    “Red Hat's programs themselves are largely based on forks of programs by other developers.”
10 of 10

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nyman, L., & Lindman, J.
Affiliations
Hanken School of Economics (FI)
ORCID
Venue
Technology Innovation Management Review
Publisher
Carleton University
Published
2013-01-14
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
7-12
ISSN
  • 1913-6102 (ISSN-L)
  • 1927-0321
DOI
10.22215/timreview/644
OpenAlex
W2155569311
Cited by
81
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Technology Innovation Management Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
Keywords
open source software, software governance, sustainability, open source communities

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

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