mgaughan/adaptation-slr
1
0
Fork 0
Code

9/34

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
mgaughan 2025-07-11 11:19:13 -04:00
parent d5147f62be
commit f4cc5b26c5
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
070725_papers_master.csv
View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ BFEMKQCR,journalArticle,2014,"Gamalielsson, Jonas; Lundell, Björn",Sustainabili
FJSA37EW,journalArticle,2021,"Bogart, Chris; Kästner, Christian; Herbsleb, James; Thung, Ferdian",When and How to Make Breaking Changes: Policies and Practices in 18 Open Source Software Ecosystems,10.1145/3447245,,,,,
72F8GVAP,journalArticle,2025,"Jahanshahi, Mahmoud; Reid, David; Mockus, Audris",Beyond Dependencies: The Role of Copy-Based Reuse in Open Source Software Development,10.1145/3715907,,,,,
QEKG8ISF,journalArticle,2016,"Hilton, Michael; Tunnell, Timothy; Huang, Kai; Marinov, Darko; Dig, Danny","ASE - Usage, costs, and benefits of continuous integration in open-source projects",10.1145/2970276.2970358,,,,,
ZGK4HR76,journalArticle,2015,"Vendome, Christopher; Linares-Vasquez, Mario; Bavota, Gabriele; Di Penta, Massimiliano; German, Daniel M.; Poshyvanyk, Denys",ICSME - When and why developers adopt and change software licenses,10.1109/icsm.2015.7332449,,,,,
ZGK4HR76,journalArticle,2015,"Vendome, Christopher; Linares-Vasquez, Mario; Bavota, Gabriele; Di Penta, Massimiliano; German, Daniel M.; Poshyvanyk, Denys",ICSME - When and why developers adopt and change software licenses,10.1109/icsm.2015.7332449,Procedural – license changes within OSS projects --- the change event is the real adaptation action; rationale for commercial reuse is also a motivating factor ,"OSS maintainers (Java, on GitHub) who change the license --- oftentimes this is a copyright holder or primary core contirbutor of the project ","nebulous environment of commercial reuse, ‘community’, and user base --- there’s also discussion around the role that changes to the broader dependency network play in the structure of the project and changes to the license",Mixed-methods; mining 16k java open source projects and their commits and then supplemented with survey study of 138 developers; sample of developers surveyed are from the trace data of the mined project actions --- specifically looking to identify projects that had shifted over time with regard to licensing,many of the intitial decisions and adaptations were motivated from a range of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
PSZSSAS3,journalArticle,2017,"Ding, Hui; Ma, Wanwangying; Chen, Lin; Zhou, Yuming; Xu, Baowen",APSEC - An Empirical Study on Downstream Workarounds for Cross-Project Bugs,10.1109/apsec.2017.38,,,,,
V3F8FYG5,journalArticle,2018,"Meloca, Rômulo; Pinto, Gustavo; Baiser, Leonardo; Mattos, Marco; Polato, Ivanilton; Wiese, Igor; German, Daniel M.","Understanding the usage, impact, and adoption of non-OSI approved licenses",10.1145/3196398.3196427,Organizational / procedural-- adoption of non OSI approved licenses or change to OSI-approved license --- the majority of the changes in either direction were from the adoption or deletion of a license (which happened to be OSI compliant) --- RQ3 provides naivete or lack of care for reasoning for moves into non-approved licenses,OSS package publishers --- some of whom have published packages with non-OSI approved licenses ,"governing body --- OSI is an open source regulator, vets the software license to make sure that it’s either open source or not --Also looking at compliance within three well-known open source libraries: NPM, RubyGems and CRAN; these enviroments are kinda nested within the focal environment, compliance in terms of sync with dependencies --- check of ‘success’ or anything: majority of the time, surveyed developers are not checking whether the different licenses they select are conforming, or adhering to anything",Mixed-methods: mining packages from the three different package manager environments -- pulled down a bunch of package data from the different ecosystems and looked through their license change over specified versions: a survey with the publishers of the package. sampled from NPM. open responses were qualitatively coded by pairs of researchers ,not happy with the way that the different segments of the project are conflated with each other --- what use is the response of developers who use specific non-compliant licenses when the majority of non-compliance evolution is deletion or lack of license? --- different sets of populations between different methods sections of the research --- “developers might not fully understand the effect of the adaptive action that they’re taking” --- contributors ‘dont care; about the licenses they use
6AQY86BW,journalArticle,2022,"Businge, John; Openja, Moses; Nadi, Sarah; Berger, Thorsten",Reuse and maintenance practices among divergent forks in three software ecosystems,10.1007/s10664-021-10078-2,,,,,

1 Key Item Type Publication Year Author Title DOI Change characteristics (blue) Actors (purple) Environmental characteristics (green) Methods details (orange) Misc. (red)
18 FJSA37EW journalArticle 2021 Bogart, Chris; Kästner, Christian; Herbsleb, James; Thung, Ferdian When and How to Make Breaking Changes: Policies and Practices in 18 Open Source Software Ecosystems 10.1145/3447245
19 72F8GVAP journalArticle 2025 Jahanshahi, Mahmoud; Reid, David; Mockus, Audris Beyond Dependencies: The Role of Copy-Based Reuse in Open Source Software Development 10.1145/3715907
20 QEKG8ISF journalArticle 2016 Hilton, Michael; Tunnell, Timothy; Huang, Kai; Marinov, Darko; Dig, Danny ASE - Usage, costs, and benefits of continuous integration in open-source projects 10.1145/2970276.2970358
21 ZGK4HR76 journalArticle 2015 Vendome, Christopher; Linares-Vasquez, Mario; Bavota, Gabriele; Di Penta, Massimiliano; German, Daniel M.; Poshyvanyk, Denys ICSME - When and why developers adopt and change software licenses 10.1109/icsm.2015.7332449 Procedural – license changes within OSS projects --- the change event is the real adaptation action; rationale for commercial reuse is also a motivating factor OSS maintainers (Java, on GitHub) who change the license --- oftentimes this is a copyright holder or primary core contirbutor of the project nebulous environment of commercial reuse, ‘community’, and user base --- there’s also discussion around the role that changes to the broader dependency network play in the structure of the project and changes to the license Mixed-methods; mining 16k java open source projects and their commits and then supplemented with survey study of 138 developers; sample of developers surveyed are from the trace data of the mined project actions --- specifically looking to identify projects that had shifted over time with regard to licensing many of the intitial decisions and adaptations were motivated from a range of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations
22 PSZSSAS3 journalArticle 2017 Ding, Hui; Ma, Wanwangying; Chen, Lin; Zhou, Yuming; Xu, Baowen APSEC - An Empirical Study on Downstream Workarounds for Cross-Project Bugs 10.1109/apsec.2017.38
23 V3F8FYG5 journalArticle 2018 Meloca, Rômulo; Pinto, Gustavo; Baiser, Leonardo; Mattos, Marco; Polato, Ivanilton; Wiese, Igor; German, Daniel M. Understanding the usage, impact, and adoption of non-OSI approved licenses 10.1145/3196398.3196427 Organizational / procedural-- adoption of non OSI approved licenses or change to OSI-approved license --- the majority of the changes in either direction were from the adoption or deletion of a license (which happened to be OSI compliant) --- RQ3 provides naivete or lack of care for reasoning for moves into non-approved licenses OSS package publishers --- some of whom have published packages with non-OSI approved licenses governing body --- OSI is an open source regulator, vets the software license to make sure that it’s either open source or not --Also looking at compliance within three well-known open source libraries: NPM, RubyGems and CRAN; these enviroments are kinda nested within the focal environment, compliance in terms of sync with dependencies --- check of ‘success’ or anything: majority of the time, surveyed developers are not checking whether the different licenses they select are conforming, or adhering to anything Mixed-methods: mining packages from the three different package manager environments -- pulled down a bunch of package data from the different ecosystems and looked through their license change over specified versions: a survey with the publishers of the package. sampled from NPM. open responses were qualitatively coded by pairs of researchers not happy with the way that the different segments of the project are conflated with each other --- what use is the response of developers who use specific non-compliant licenses when the majority of non-compliance evolution is deletion or lack of license? --- different sets of populations between different methods sections of the research --- “developers might not fully understand the effect of the adaptive action that they’re taking” --- contributors ‘dont care; about the licenses they use
24 6AQY86BW journalArticle 2022 Businge, John; Openja, Moses; Nadi, Sarah; Berger, Thorsten Reuse and maintenance practices among divergent forks in three software ecosystems 10.1007/s10664-021-10078-2