Applying a Systematic Literature Review and Content Analysis Method to Analyse Open Source Developers’ Forking Motivation Interpretation, Categories and Consequences
Open accessAbstract
In open source (OS) environments, forking is a powerful social collaborative technique that creates a social coding community and increases code visibility but it has not been adopted by OS software (OSS) developers. This paper investigates OS forking divergence using contextual frameworks (systematic literature review and content analysis) to analyse OSS developer forking motivation, interpretation, categorisation and consequences. We identified five theoretical forking patterns: 1) forking can revive original project health; 2) few effective frameworks exist to describe project-to-project developer migration; 3) there is a literature on social forking community behaviour; 4) poor guidance is a threat to forking; and 5) most research uses mixed methods. We introduce guidelines for OSS communities to reduce organisational barriers to developer motivation and highlight the important of understanding developer forking. The challenge remains to analyse forking and sustainability from a social community perspective, particularly how programming language, file repositories and developer interest can predict forking motivation and behaviour for both novice OSS developers or experienced developers who want to improve forking performance.
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?
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).”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Chua and Zhang 2020
Cites
Gamalielsson, J., & Lundell, B. (2014) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.11.1077 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Foster, D., & Germonprez, M. (2026) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.70060
- Authors
- Chua, B. B., & Zhang, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- ORCID
- Zhang, Ying
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Information Systems
- Published
- 2020-06-16
- Volume
- 24
- ISSN
- 1039-7841 (ISSN-L)
- 1449-8618
- OpenAlex
- W3035933893
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 0.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- AJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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, forking, developer motivation, open source communities, project sustainability, novice programmers, developer guidance
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