One that doesn't seem to be listed is "overconfident fork" in which someone forks an existing project out of anger or hubris, but that fork never gains critical mass and eventually withers away.

The opposite is what happened with OpenSSH, Jenkins, and LibreOffice, in which the original project (SSH, Hudson, and OpenOffice) had the hubris but was quickly forgotten when the community moved on.

Then there's Jekyll, which is not exactly dead but definitely moribund. It seems to be blocked by GitHub's refusal to support further development and upgrade to the 4.x releases.

A lot of edge cases on this list. Among projects I've used it's almost always maintainers losing interest or vanishing.

Forking is always suggested as a solution, but some projects treat forks as hostile attempts to steal their project. I've hit fork deadlock before where a maintainer didn't want to merge important requests, but also became exceedingly hostile to anyone who tried to fork the project. If a maintainer treats the project and its users as their little empire, the situation is bound to get sad.

I love this! Thanks for sharing.

This is missing the "someone claimed they wrote all the code from the original repository and is now doing everything they can so that the author will vanish or have their reputation destroyed so theirs won't." Tactics can include claiming authorship within the gated walls of Big Tech and using their power to oppress the author. It's actually them that's stealing work, not them. Other's can include gang stalking the author.

Here's another: code was open sourced with every intention of becoming a thriving community-driven project, but in practice users only take from the code what they want for their own needs and never contribute back, or expect the maintainer to solve all of their integration issues for them. Eventually, the maintainer decides that they have better things to do than fixing other people's problems, and that there is more value to be had from bespoke contract work. Some updates still get pushed but over time the project gradually gets abandoned and the open source dream slowly passes away.

Another way I came across today: Someone unrelated tried to profit off the project and it pissed the maintainer off enough to stop working on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMPshop#Status

What's the smart way?

>Real development happens inside a company’s private monorepo, and the public repo gets a periodic squashed code dump

This is not dead. Open source projects don't have to be developed out in the open.

[flagged]

I remember having this discussion a long time ago that instead of dependencies we should build a function and type hub that lets you pick tested function and type definitions. Each individual artefact is tiny so forking it is really simple. Instead of building a massive library you mix and match for your use case. The platform itself can host test cases decoupled from the definition. With AI this sounds much more real world and it solves maintenance problems pretty much entirely.