pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01750 · v1 · pith:NDPHNGYRnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 💻 cs.CY

Open Source Is Not One Thing: A Typology of Open-Source Software Sub-Genres

Mohamed Ouf , Rowan Hussein This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 06:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords open source softwaretypologysub-genresgeneralizationempirical researchgovernancefundingcommunity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Open source software falls into fourteen sub-genres that limit how far any single study's findings can generalize.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that open source software is not homogeneous because projects differ in purpose, governance, and funding, which in turn shape their communities and maintenance. Empirical studies commonly sample across open source without regard to these differences and present results as applying to open source in general. The authors contend that this practice overgeneralizes, since the sub-genre sampled sets the boundary on valid claims. They conducted a review of 3,925 papers to produce a typology of fourteen sub-genres, ranging from well-documented ones such as community-driven and company-backed to less-examined ones such as protestware and open-source appropriate technology. The work supplies a framework that records each sub-genre's primary driver, governance, and funding, along with a research agenda focused on testing whether results transfer between sub-genres.

Core claim

The authors synthesize a typology of fourteen OSS sub-genres distinguished by primary driver, governance, and funding. They place each in a framework noting maturity in the literature and representative projects, and propose a research agenda centered on whether findings from one sub-genre transfer to others.

What carries the argument

A typology of fourteen OSS sub-genres organized by primary driver, governance, and funding, derived from a multi-source literature review of 3,925 papers.

If this is right

  • Studies sampling one sub-genre cannot assume their results apply to open source as a whole.
  • Research must specify the sub-genre when reporting findings to allow proper generalization bounds.
  • Under-studied sub-genres like protestware require dedicated empirical work.
  • The framework enables systematic comparison across sub-genres.
  • A central open question is the transferability of established results between sub-genres.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Policymakers designing incentives for open source should differentiate by sub-genre rather than treat all OSS uniformly.
  • The typology could be tested by re-analyzing existing datasets stratified by sub-genre.
  • Future meta-analyses of OSS research should code studies by sub-genre to assess generalizability.

Load-bearing premise

The fourteen sub-genres are stable, non-overlapping categories whose empirical properties differ enough to restrict generalization across them.

What would settle it

A study that samples projects from multiple sub-genres and finds no statistically significant differences in key outcomes such as contribution patterns or maintenance practices across sub-genres.

read the original abstract

Open source software (OSS) is not homogeneous. A project's purpose, governance, and funding shape how its community forms, who contributes, and how the software is maintained, yet empirical research often samples OSS broadly and reports findings as if they held for open source as a whole. We argue that OSS comprises distinguishable sub-genres, and that the sub-genre a study samples bounds how far its findings generalize. Using a light, multi-source review that screens 3,925 unique papers, we synthesize a typology of fourteen OSS sub-genres, from well-studied ones such as community-driven, company-backed, foundation-governed, research and scientific, and open source for social good (OSS4SG), to under-studied ones such as multi-company co-opetition, protestware, and open-source appropriate technology. We place the sub-genres in a framework that records each one's primary driver, governance, and funding, with its maturity in the literature and representative projects, and we present a research agenda whose central question is whether findings established on one sub-genre transfer to others. The contribution is the typology and the agenda rather than a complete census, and we mark the sub-genres whose empirical support is thin.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper argues that open source software (OSS) is not homogeneous and that its sub-genres, shaped by purpose, governance, and funding, bound the generalizability of empirical findings. It presents a typology of fourteen OSS sub-genres derived from a light multi-source review screening 3,925 unique papers, organized by primary driver, governance, and funding, with notes on literature maturity and representative projects. The contribution includes a research agenda on whether findings transfer across sub-genres, with explicit marking of categories with thin empirical support.

Significance. If the typology holds, it would encourage more nuanced sampling in OSS research and highlight limitations in generalizing across different sub-genres such as community-driven versus company-backed or protestware. The approach of synthesizing from literature rather than inventing categories, and the open framing of the transferability question as an agenda rather than a proven result, strengthens the contribution. The paper credits the review as light and not a complete census.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the description of the multi-source review that screens 3,925 papers provides no information on search strings, databases, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or inter-rater validation; a concise methods paragraph would allow readers to assess how the 14 categories were derived.
  2. [Typology framework] Section on typology construction: while the paper marks sub-genres with thin empirical support, it does not discuss potential overlaps (e.g., between foundation-governed and multi-company co-opetition) or decision rules for assignment; adding a short note on boundary cases would improve usability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the manuscript, the accurate summary of its contributions, and the recommendation for minor revision. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs a literature synthesis to construct a 14-category typology of OSS sub-genres from an external base of 3,925 screened papers. The central claim (sub-genres bound generalization) is advanced as an organizing framework plus open research agenda rather than a derived prediction or theorem. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear; categories are explicitly marked for thin support and the contribution is scoped as typology rather than empirical demonstration. The derivation chain is self-contained against external sources.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a literature synthesis that introduces no fitted numerical parameters and no new physical or mathematical entities. The sub-genres are classifications extracted from existing papers rather than postulated inventions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Open source software projects can be usefully distinguished by primary driver, governance, and funding source.
    This premise is required to justify creating and applying the 14-category typology.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5747 in / 1171 out tokens · 29229 ms · 2026-07-03T06:21:06.236971+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Guilherme Avelino, Leonardo Passos, Andre Hora, and Marco Tulio Valente

  2. [2]

    A Novel Approach for Estimating Truck Factors

    A Novel Approach for Estimating Truck Factors. InProceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2016). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1–10. arXiv:1604.06766 doi:10.1109/ICPC.2016.7503718

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1109/icpc.2016.7503718 2016

  3. [3]

    Yochai Benkler. 2002. Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm. Yale Law Journal112, 3 (2002), 369–446. doi:10.2307/1562247

    work page doi:10.2307/1562247 2002

  4. [4]

    Jérémy Bonvoisin, Tom Buchert, Maurice Preidel, and Rainer G. Stark. 2018. How Participative Is Open Source Hardware? Insights from Online Repository Mining. Design Science4 (2018), e19. doi:10.1017/dsj.2018.15

    work page doi:10.1017/dsj.2018.15 2018

  5. [5]

    Jean-François Boujut, Franck Pourroy, Philippe Marin, Jason Dai, and Gilles Richardot. 2019. Open Source Hardware Communities: Investigating Partici- pation in Design Activities. InProceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 2307–2316. doi:10.1017/dsi.2019.237

    work page doi:10.1017/dsi.2019.237 2019

  6. [6]

    Budhathoki and Caroline Haythornthwaite

    Nama R. Budhathoki and Caroline Haythornthwaite. 2013. Motivation for Open Collaboration: Crowd and Community Models and the Case of Open- StreetMap.American Behavioral Scientist57, 5 (2013), 548–575. doi:10.1177/ 0002764212469364

    2013

  7. [7]

    Javier Luis Cánovas Izquierdo and Jordi Cabot. 2018. The Role of Foundations in Open Source Projects. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–12. doi:10.1145/3183428.3183438

    work page doi:10.1145/3183428.3183438 2018

  8. [8]

    Maximilian Capraro and Dirk Riehle. 2016. Inner Source Definition, Benefits, and Challenges.Comput. Surveys49, 4, Article 67 (Dec. 2016), 36 pages. doi:10. 1145/2856821

    2016

  9. [9]

    Kaylea Champion and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2021. Underproduction: An Ap- proach for Measuring Risk in Open Source Software. InProceedings of the 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengi- neering (SANER 2021). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 388–399. arXiv:2103.00352 doi:10.1109/SANER50967.2021.00043

    work page doi:10.1109/saner50967.2021.00043 2021

  10. [10]

    Marc Cheong, Raula Gaikovina Kula, and Christoph Treude. 2023. Ethi- cal Considerations Towards Protestware. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10019. arXiv:2306.10019 [cs.CY] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.10019

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.10019 2023

  11. [11]

    Jailton Coelho and Marco Tulio Valente. 2017. Why Modern Open Source Projects Fail. InProceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software En- gineering (ESEC/FSE 2017). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 186–196. arXiv:1707.02327 doi:10.1145/3106237.3106246

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1145/3106237.3106246 2017

  12. [12]

    Kevin Crowston and James Howison. 2005. The Social Structure of Free and Open Source Software Development.First Monday10, 2 (2005). doi:10.5210/fm. v10i2.1207

    work page doi:10.5210/fm 2005

  13. [13]

    Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, James Howison, and Andrea Wiggins. 2012. Free/Libre Open-Source Software Development: What We Know and What We Do Not Know.Comput. Surveys44, 2 (2012), 7:1–7:35. doi:10.1145/2089125. 2089127

    work page doi:10.1145/2089125 2012

  14. [14]

    Lars Dahlander and Mats Magnusson. 2008. How Do Firms Make Use of Open Source Communities?Long Range Planning41, 6 (2008), 629–649. doi:10.1016/j. lrp.2008.09.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2008

  15. [15]

    Magnusson

    Linus Dahlander and Mats G. Magnusson. 2005. Relationships between Open Source Software Companies and Communities: Observations from Nordic Firms. Research Policy34, 4 (2005), 481–493. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.003 2005

  16. [16]

    Sandy Staples

    Dany Di Tullio and D. Sandy Staples. 2013. The Governance and Control of Open Source Software Projects.Journal of Management Information Systems30, 3 (2013), 49–80. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222300303

    work page doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222300303 2013

  17. [17]

    Dueñas, Hugo A

    Juan C. Dueñas, Hugo A. Parada, Félix Cuadrado, Manuel Santillán, and José L. Ruiz. 2007. Apache and Eclipse: Comparing Open Source Project Incubators. IEEE Software24, 6 (2007), 90–98. doi:10.1109/MS.2007.157

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2007.157 2007

  18. [18]

    Estelle Duparc, Frederik Möller, Ilka Jussen, Maleen Stachon, Sükran Algac, and Boris Otto. 2022. Archetypes of Open-Source Business Models.Electronic Markets 32, 2 (2022), 727–745. doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00557-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00557-9 2022

  19. [19]

    2016.Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Be- hind Our Digital Infrastructure

    Nadia Eghbal. 2016.Roads and Bridges: The Unseen Labor Be- hind Our Digital Infrastructure. Technical Report. Ford Foundation. https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-reports/roads- and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure/

    2016

  20. [20]

    2020.Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software

    Nadia Eghbal. 2020.Working in Public: The Making and Maintenance of Open Source Software. Stripe Press, San Francisco, CA, USA

    2020

  21. [21]

    Heidi J. C. Ellis, Ralph Morelli, Trishan de Lanerolle, Joanna Damon, and Joel Raye. 2007. Can Humanitarian Open-Source Software Development Draw New Students to CS?. InProceedings of the 38th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2007). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 551–555. doi:10. 1145/1227310.1227495

    work page arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Youmei Fan, Dong Wang, Supatsara Wattanakriengkrai, Hathaichanok Dam- rongsiri, Christoph Treude, Hideaki Hata, and Raula Gaikovina Kula. 2024. Going Viral: Case Studies on the Impact of Protestware. InProceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Compan- ion Proceedings (ICSE ’24 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 30...

    work page doi:10.1145/3639478.3643086 2024

  23. [23]

    Youmei Fan, Dong Wang, Supatsara Wattanakriengkrai, Hathaichanok Dam- rongsiri, Christoph Treude, Hideaki Hata, and Raula Gaikovina Kula. 2025. Devel- oper Reactions to Protestware in Open Source Software: The Cases of color.js and es5.ext.Empirical Software Engineering(2025). doi:10.1007/s10664-024-10599-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-024-10599-6 2025

  24. [24]

    Zihan Fang, Madeline Endres, Thomas Zimmermann, Denae Ford, Westley Weimer, Kevin Leach, and Yu Huang. 2023. A Four-Year Study of Student Contri- butions to OSS vs. OSS4SG with a Lightweight Intervention. InProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE). ACM, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3611643.3616250 2023

  25. [25]

    Brian Fitzgerald. 2006. The Transformation of Open Source Software.MIS Quarterly30, 3 (2006), 587–598. doi:10.2307/25148740

    work page doi:10.2307/25148740 2006

  26. [26]

    Jo Erskine Hannay, Carolyn MacLeod, Janice Singer, Hans Petter Langtangen, Dietmar Pfahl, and Greg Wilson. 2009. How Do Scientists Develop and Use Scientific Software?. InProceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering (SECSE). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1109/SECSE.2009.5069155

    work page doi:10.1109/secse.2009.5069155 2009

  27. [27]

    Dustin Heaton and Jeffrey C. Carver. 2015. Claims about the Use of Software Engineering Practices in Science: A Systematic Literature Review.Information and Software Technology67 (2015), 207–219. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.07.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.07.011 2015

  28. [28]

    Hislop, Heidi J

    Gregory W. Hislop, Heidi J. C. Ellis, S. Monisha Pulimood, Becka Morgan, Suzanne Mello-Stark, Ben Coleman, and Cam Macdonell. 2015. A Multi-Institutional Study of Learning via Student Involvement in Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software Projects. InProceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Resear...

    work page doi:10.1145/2787622.2787726 2015

  29. [29]

    Yu Huang, Denae Ford, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2021. Leaving My Finger- prints: Motivations and Challenges of Contributing to OSS for Social Good. In Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1020–1032. doi:10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00096

    work page doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00096 2021

  30. [30]

    German, and Daniela Damian

    Eirini Kalliamvakou, Georgios Gousios, Kelly Blincoe, Leif Singer, Daniel M. German, and Daniela Damian. 2014. The Promises and Perils of Mining GitHub. InProceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2014). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 92–101. doi:10.1145/2597073.2597074

    work page doi:10.1145/2597073.2597074 2014

  31. [31]

    Johan Linåker, Björn Lundell, Francisco Servant, Jonas Gamalielsson, Sachiko Muto, and Gregorio Robles. 2025. Public Sector Open Source Software Projects – How Is Development Organized?Empirical Software Engineering30, 3 (2025). doi:10.1007/s10664-025-10626-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10664-025-10626-0 2025

  32. [32]

    Johan Linåker, Gregorio Robles, Deborah Bryant, and Sachiko Muto. 2023. Open Source Software in the Public Sector: 25 Years and Still in Its Infancy.IEEE Software40, 4 (2023), 39–44. doi:10.1109/MS.2023.3266105 Open Source Is Not One Thing: A Typology of Open-Source Software Sub-Genres

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2023.3266105 2023

  33. [33]

    Lynne Markus

    M. Lynne Markus. 2007. The Governance of Free/Open Source Software Projects: Monolithic, Multidimensional, or Configurational?Journal of Management & Governance11, 2 (2007), 151–163. doi:10.1007/s10997-007-9021-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10997-007-9021-x 2007

  34. [34]

    Siobhán O’Mahony. 2007. The Governance of Open Source Initiatives: What Does It Mean to Be Community Managed?Journal of Management and Governance11, 2 (2007), 139–150. doi:10.1007/s10997-007-9024-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10997-007-9024-7 2007

  35. [35]

    Siobhán O’Mahony and Fabrizio Ferraro. 2007. The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community.Academy of Management Journal50, 5 (2007), 1079–1106. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153

    work page doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153 2007

  36. [36]

    Cailean Osborne, Farbod Daneshyan, Runzhi He, Hengzhi Ye, Yuxia Zhang, and Minghui Zhou. 2025. Characterising Open Source Co-opetition in Company- hosted Open Source Software Projects: The Cases of PyTorch, TensorFlow, and Transformers.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, CSCW2 (2025), CSCW046:1–CSCW046:30. arXiv:2410.18241 doi:10.1145/3710944

    work page doi:10.1145/3710944 2025

  37. [37]

    Mohamed Ouf and Mariam Guizani. 2026. Same Project, Different Start: How Contribution Events Shape Activity and Retention in Open Source. InProceedings of the 30th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE ’26). ACM, New York, NY, USA. arXiv:2604.22120 [cs.HC] Short Papers and Emerging Results track; Glasgow, UK, ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Mohamed Ouf, Haoyu Li, Michael Zhang, and Mariam Guizani. 2025. Reverse Engineering User Stories from Code using Large Language Models. InPro- ceedings of the 2025 IEEE International Conference on Collaborative Advances in Software and COmputiNg (CASCON 2025). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 504–509. arXiv:2509.19587 [cs.SE] doi:10.1109/CASCON66301.2025.00080

    work page doi:10.1109/cascon66301.2025.00080 2025

  39. [39]

    Mohamed Ouf, Amr Mohamed, and Mariam Guizani. 2026. Do Good, Stay Longer? Temporal Patterns and Predictors of Newcomer-to-Core Transitions in Conventional OSS and OSS4SG. InProceedings of the 30th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE ’26). ACM, New York, NY, USA. arXiv:2601.23142 [cs.SE] Glasgow, United Kingd...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    DOI not yet assigned at time of compilation

  41. [41]

    Mohamed Ouf, Shayan Noei, Zeph Van Iterson, Mariam Guizani, and Ying Zou

  42. [42]

    Conventional OSS

    An Empirical Analysis of Community and Coding Patterns in OSS4SG vs. Conventional OSS. InProceedings of the 2026 IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’26). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13 pages. arXiv:2601.03430 [cs.SE] doi:10.1145/3744916.3787782 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 12–18, 2026

    work page doi:10.1145/3744916.3787782 2026

  43. [43]

    Mohamed Ashraf Ouf, Abdulrahman Hussien Ali, Rowan Mohamed Amin, Yehia Ahmed Hamdan, Moustafa Mamdouh Sabry, and Sherine Nagy Saleh

  44. [44]

    In2024 International Telecommunications Conference (ITC-Egypt)

    VISION-PF: A Computer Vision Approach to Injury Prevention in Physical Fitness. In2024 International Telecommunications Conference (ITC-Egypt). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 428–433. doi:10.1109/ITC-EGYPT61547.2024.10620528 Cairo, Egypt, July 22–25, 2024

    work page doi:10.1109/itc-egypt61547.2024.10620528 2024

  45. [45]

    Marshall

    Mohamed Ashraf Ouf, Abdelrahman Elkhateeb, Abdelmoneim Soliman, Md Safiqur Rahaman, Sara Mobarak, and Mervin A. Marshall. 2024. A Review of Reconfigurable Intelligent Surfaces and Their Application to Machine Learning- Assisted Underwater Communications.The Journal of Ocean Technology19, 4 (2024), 52–84

    2024

  46. [46]

    Joshua M. Pearce. 2012. Building Research Equipment with Free, Open-Source Hardware.Science337, 6100 (2012), 1303–1304. doi:10.1126/science.1228183

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1228183 2012

  47. [47]

    Joshua M. Pearce. 2012. The Case for Open Source Appropriate Technology. Environment, Development and Sustainability14, 3 (2012), 425–431. doi:10.1007/ s10668-012-9337-9

    2012

  48. [48]

    Pearce, Christine Morris Blair, Kristen J

    Joshua M. Pearce, Christine Morris Blair, Kristen J. Laciak, Rob Andrews, Amir Nosrat, and Ivana Zelenika-Zovko. 2010. 3-D Printing of Open Source Ap- propriate Technologies for Self-Directed Sustainable Development.Journal of Sustainable Development3, 4 (2010), 17–29. doi:10.5539/jsd.v3n4p17

    work page doi:10.5539/jsd.v3n4p17 2010

  49. [49]

    Gustavo Pinto, Clarice Ferreira, Cleice Souza, Igor Steinmacher, and Paulo Meirelles. 2019. Training Software Engineers Using Open-Source Software: The Students’ Perspective. InProceedings of the 41st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Train- ing (ICSE-SEET 2019). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 147–15...

    work page doi:10.1109/icse- 2019

  50. [50]

    Dirk Riehle. 2012. The Single-Vendor Commercial Open Source Business Model. Information Systems and e-Business Management10, 1 (2012), 5–17. doi:10.1007/ s10257-010-0149-x

    2012

  51. [51]

    Sonali K. Shah. 2006. Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development.Management Science52, 7 (2006), 1000–1014. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0553

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0553 2006

  52. [52]

    Marshall, Md Safiqur Rahaman, Mo- hamed Ashraf Ouf, and Ahmed El-Sayed

    Abdelmoneim Soliman, Mervin A. Marshall, Md Safiqur Rahaman, Mo- hamed Ashraf Ouf, and Ahmed El-Sayed. 2024. A Bibliometric Review of Research Publications on Digital Twin Predictive Maintenance Systems in the Maritime Industry.The Journal of Ocean Technology19, 2 (2024), 46–76

    2024

  53. [53]

    Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Conte, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles

  54. [54]

    InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW 2015)

    Social Barriers Faced by Newcomers Placing Their First Contribution in Open Source Software Projects. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW 2015). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1379–1392. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675215

    work page doi:10.1145/2675133.2675215 2015

  55. [55]

    Klaas-Jan Stol, Paris Avgeriou, Muhammad Ali Babar, Yan Lucas, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2014. Key Factors for Adopting Inner Source.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology23, 2, Article 18 (April 2014), 35 pages. doi:10.1145/2533685

    work page doi:10.1145/2533685 2014

  56. [56]

    Klaas-Jan Stol and Brian Fitzgerald. 2015. Inner Source—Adopting Open Source Development Practices in Organizations: A Tutorial.IEEE Software32, 4 (2015), 60–67. doi:10.1109/MS.2014.77

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2014.77 2015

  57. [57]

    José Teixeira, Salman Mian, and Ulla Hytti. 2016. Cooperation Among Competi- tors in the Open-Source Arena: The Case of OpenStack. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016). Association for Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland. arXiv:1612.09462

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    González-Barahona

    José Teixeira, Gregorio Robles, and Jesús M. González-Barahona. 2015. Lessons Learned from Applying Social Network Analysis on an Industrial Free/Libre/Open Source Software Ecosystem.Journal of Internet Services and Applications6, 1 (2015), 14. doi:10.1186/s13174-015-0028-2

    work page doi:10.1186/s13174-015-0028-2 2015

  59. [59]

    Annelies van Loon and Dimiter Toshkov. 2015. Adopting Open Source Software in Public Administration: The Importance of Boundary Spanners and Political Commitment.Government Information Quarterly32, 2 (2015), 207–215. doi:10. 1016/j.giq.2015.01.004

    2015

  60. [60]

    Joel West and Siobhán O’Mahony. 2008. The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities.Industry and Innovation15, 2 (2008), 145–168. doi:10.1080/13662710801970142

    work page doi:10.1080/13662710801970142 2008

  61. [61]

    Greg Wilson, D. A. Aruliah, C. Titus Brown, Neil P. Chue Hong, Matt Davis, Richard T. Guy, Steven H. D. Haddock, Kathryn D. Huff, Ian M. Mitchell, Mark D. Plumbley, Ben Waugh, Ethan P. White, and Paul Wilson. 2014. Best Practices for Scientific Computing.PLOS Biology12, 1 (2014), e1001745. doi:10.1371/journal. pbio.1001745

    work page doi:10.1371/journal 2014

  62. [62]

    Nan Yang, Igor Ferreira, Alexander Serebrenik, and Bram Adams. 2022. Why Do Projects Join the Apache Software Foundation?. InProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS ’22). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 161–171. doi:10.1109/ICSE-SEIS55304. 2022.9794012

    work page doi:10.1109/icse-seis55304 2022

  63. [63]

    Markus Zimmermann, Cristian-Alexandru Staicu, Cam Tenny, and Michael Pradel. 2019. Small World with High Risks: A Study of Security Threats in the npm Ecosystem. InProceedings of the 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security ’19). USENIX Association, 995–1010. arXiv:1902.09217

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019