Document Open Access Logo

Making Impact Visible in Funding of Open Source Software: A Study of the Funders' Perspective

Authors Johan Linåker , Kevin Lumbard , Georg Link

PDF

File

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
LIPIcs.ESEM.2026.8.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.62 MB
  • 20 pages

Document Identifiers

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Software and its engineering → Open source model
Keywords
  • Open Source Software
  • Funding
  • Project Health
  • Community Health
  • Sustainability

Metrics

Abstract

Background. Open Source Software (OSS) remains underfunded, threatening the sustainability of critical digital infrastructure. In response, several public, private, and philanthropic funding initiatives are emerging. However, demand greatly exceeds supply, underscoring the need to increase funding and improve the efficiency and impact of existing funding sources. 

Aims. This study investigates how OSS funders conceptualize, measure, and report funding impact, and the implications for sustaining and funding OSS projects. We focus on how funders select projects, define objectives, measure outcomes, and justify continued funding. 

Method. We conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with 25 participants representing funders, funding recipients, and research organizations in the OSS ecosystem. The findings were synthesized using thematic analysis and validated and enriched through a follow-up workshop with 16 participants from overlapping organizations. 

Results. We find that impact is typically measured through short-term, milestone-based deliverables and qualitative narratives, and is dependent on personal funder-recipient relationships. Long-term sustainability, risk mitigation, and human-centered impacts are difficult to capture and rarely measured systematically. Measurement practices are shaped by (often implicit) funder strategies, funding structures, and reporting requirements, leading to ad-hoc and project-specific approaches. 

Conclusions. Measuring and reporting funding impact remains a shared and non-trivial challenge for OSS funders. Addressing this requires explicit impact logics and shared meta‑frameworks (rather than universal metrics) to enable a more coordinated and complementary OSS funding ecosystem. This, in turn, can improve the effectiveness, accountability, and availability of funding and ultimately support the long-term sustainability of OSS as critical infrastructure.

Cite As Get BibTex

Johan Linåker, Kevin Lumbard, and Georg Link. Making Impact Visible in Funding of Open Source Software: A Study of the Funders' Perspective. In 20th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2026). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 394, pp. 8:1-8:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2026) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ESEM.2026.8

Author Details

Johan Linåker
  • RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Lund, Sweden
Kevin Lumbard
  • Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA
Georg Link
  • Independent, Omaha, NE, USA

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Knut Blind, Mirko Böhm, Paula Grzegorzewska, Andrew Katz, Sachiko Muto, Sivan Pätsch, and Torben Schubert. The impact of open source software and hardware on technological independence, competitiveness and innovation in the eu economy. Final Study Report. European Commission, Brussels, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.2759/430161.
  2. James Bort, Azzurra Meoli, and David W. Sullivan. Financing A Free-for-All: Crowdfunding Open-Source Software. Small Business Economics, 63(4):1449-1469, December 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-023-00867-y.
  3. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2):77-101, January 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
  4. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4):589-597, 2019. Google Scholar
  5. Victor Chang, Hugo Mills, and Steven Newhouse. From Open Source to long-term sustainability: Review of Business Models and Case studies. In Proceedings of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting 2007. University of Edinburgh/University of Glasgow (acting through the NeSC), 2007. Google Scholar
  6. Henry Chesbrough. Measuring the Economic Value of Open Source: A Survey and a Preliminary Analysis. Technical report, The Linux Foundation, March 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.70828/MNOD1451.
  7. John W. Creswell and J. David Creswell. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications, 2017. Google Scholar
  8. Kevin Crowston, Kangning Wei, Qing Li, and James Howison. Core and periphery in free/libre and open source software team communications. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06), volume 6, pages 118a-118a. IEEE, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2006.101.
  9. Daniel Curto-Millet and Alberto Corsín Jiménez. The sustainability of open source commons. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(5):763-781, September 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2046516.
  10. Nadia Eghbal. Roads and bridges: The unseen labor behind our digital infrastructure. Ford Foundation, 2016. Google Scholar
  11. Jennifer Fereday and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1):80-92, March 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107.
  12. Brian Fitzgerald. The transformation of open source software. MIS Quarterly, pages 587-598, 2006. URL: http://misq.org/the-transformation-of-open-source-software.html.
  13. Nicholas Gates, Jennifer Tridgell, Rosa Maria Torraco, Carsten Schwäbe, Felix Reda, Andreas Hummler, Thomas Streinz, Astor Nummelin Carlberg, and Knut Blind. Funding europe’s open digital infrastructure: A study on the economic, legal, and political feasibility of an eu sovereign tech fund (eu-stf). Feasibility study, OpenForum Europe; Fraunhofer ISI; European University Institute, July 2025. Commissioned by GitHub’s Developer Policy team. URL: https://eu-stf.openforumeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/EU-STF-Feasibility-Study_final.pdf.
  14. R. Stuart Geiger, Dorothy Howard, and Lilly Irani. The Labor of Maintaining and Scaling Free and Open-Source Software Projects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1):1-28, April 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3449249.
  15. Matt Germonprez, Matt Levy, Julie E. Kendall, and Kenneth E. Kendall. Tapestries of innovation: Structures of contemporary open source project engagements. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(3):5, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.17705/1JAIS.00615.
  16. Matt Germonprez, Georg JP Link, Kevin Lumbard, and Sean Goggins. Eight observations and 24 research questions about open source projects: illuminating new realities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW):1-22, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3274326.
  17. Sean Goggins, Kevin Lumbard, and Matt Germonprez. Open source community health: Analytical metrics and their corresponding narratives. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Software Health in Projects, Ecosystems and Communities (SoHeal), pages 25-33, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/SoHeal52568.2021.00010.
  18. Egon G Guba. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj, 29(2):75-91, 1981. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777.
  19. Manuel Hoffmann, Frank Nagle, and Yanuo Zhou. The value of open source software. Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper, 24-038, 2024. Google Scholar
  20. Eric A. Jensen and Daniel S. Katz. Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders. PLoS One, 20(8):e0329833, 2025. Google Scholar
  21. Paul Keller. European public digital infrastructure fund. White paper, Open Future, February 2023. URL: https://openfuture.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/230227-European-Public-Digital-Infrastructure-Fund.pdf.
  22. Josh Lerner and Jean Tirole. Some simple economics of open source. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2):197-234, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6451.00174.
  23. Xuetao Li, Yuxia Zhang, Cailean Osborne, Minghui Zhou, Zhi Jin, and Hui Liu. Systematic Literature Review of Commercial Participation in Open Source Software. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 34(2):1-31, February 2025. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3690632.
  24. Johan Linåker, Georg Link, and Kevin Lumbard. Sustaining maintenance labor for healthy open source software projects through human infrastructure: A maintainer perspective. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pages 37-48, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3674805.3686667.
  25. Johan Linåker, Thomas Olsson, and Efi Papatheocharous. Assessing open source software health in organizations’ intake processes: A qualitative study on the practitioners’ perspective. Empirical Software Engineering, 31(4):105, 2026. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/S10664-026-10846-Y.
  26. Johan Linåker, Efi Papatheocharous, and Thomas Olsson. How to characterize the health of an open source software project? a snowball literature review of an emerging practice. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, OpenSym '22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3555051.3555067.
  27. Johan Linåker and Per Runeson. Sustaining open data as a digital common – design principles for common pool resources applied to open data ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, OpenSym '22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3555051.3555066.
  28. Johan Linåker, Nicholas Gates, Yannis Chourmouziadis, and Simon Weber. Open source software adoption and reuse in european local governments: A multiple-case study. Report, European Commission, Open Source Observatory (OSOR), September 2025. Manuscript completed in September 2025 under Specific Contract 32 FWC DI 07929-00 BEACON Lot 2. URL: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observatory-osor/reports-and-guidelines.
  29. Kevin Lumbard, Matt Germonprez, and Sean Goggins. An empirical investigation of social comparison and open source community health. Information Systems Journal, 34(2):499-532, March 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12485.
  30. Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldana. Qualitative data analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. Google Scholar
  31. Lorelli S. Nowell, Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1):1609406917733847, December 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847.
  32. Mancur Olson Jr. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, with a new preface and appendix, volume 124. harvard university press, 1971. Google Scholar
  33. Cailean Osborne. Open Source Software Developers' Views on Public and Private Funding: A Case Study on scikit-learn. In Companion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pages 154-161, San Jose Costa Rica, November 2024. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3678884.3681844.
  34. Cailean Osborne, Paul Sharratt, Dawn Foster, and Mirko Boehm. A toolkit for measuring the impacts of public funding on open source software development. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06027, 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.06027.
  35. Michael Quinn Patton. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications, 2014. Google Scholar
  36. Jukka Ruohonen, Gaurav Choudhary, and Adam Alami. An Overview of Cyber Security Funding for Open Source Software, April 2025. arXiv:2412.05887 [cs]. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.05887.
  37. Johnny Saldaña. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. sage, 2021. Google Scholar
  38. Carly Strasser, Kate Hertweck, Josh Greenberg, Dario Taraborelli, and Elizabeth Vu. Ten simple rules for funding scientific open source software. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(11):e1010627, 2022. Google Scholar
  39. Synopsys. Open source security and risk report, 2025. Retrieved from URL: https://www.blackduck.com/blog/open-source-trends-ossra-report.html.
Any Issues?
X

Feedback on the Current Page

CAPTCHA

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted to Dagstuhl Publishing

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2026 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact