Open source operating systems thus something of a conundrum. On the one hand, open source requires that developers have absolute freedom to modify the software as they see fit. On the other hand, the software must obey certain architectural rules if it is to serve as a platform that can bring together different types of hardware and applications. The flexibility inherent in open source can lead to incompatibility. In extreme cases, it can even cause the open source project to fork into two or more different branches.
Such fragmentation dissipates the economic benefits of being able to access a large customer base through a single platform and forces app developers to expend the cost to make their products compatible with multiple versions of the operating system. One classic solution to these problems is to rely on some form of testing to ensure that the components provided by third
parties are configured to comply with a compatibility standard. Another is to subject the overall system to some form of governance. Although both alternatives may seem to be somewhat inconsistent with the philosophy of open source, the academic literature indicates that both are a necessary aspect of any modular platform in which multiple parties provide separate
components. The question is thus not whether such restrictions must exist, but rather how restrictive they have to be.
The history of the three leading open source operating systems (Unix, Symbian, and Linux) confirms this insight. Moreover, an approach that permits third parties to self-certify represents the least restrictive way to implement such requirements. Any restrictions are also less likely to be problematic if they are royalty-free, nonexclusive, and open source. It thus appears that solutions such as Google’s Anti-Fragmentation Agreement represent one way to strike a reasonable balance between ensuring that the operating system serves as a platform that brings together mobile devices and applications in a way that promotes the ability to “write once, run anywhere” and giving device manufacturers and app developers as much flexibility as
possible. Given the lingering uncertainty about the best way to balance these concerns, end users and technological progress would best be served by giving operating system providers
considerable latitude in determining the best way to promote freedom without creating undue risks of fragmentation.
References
Android. n.d. Compatibility Program Overview.
https://source.android.com/compatibility/overview.html.
Baldwin, Carliss Y., and Kim B. Clark. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Best, Jo. 2013. “‘Android before Android’: The long, strange history of Symbian and why it matters for Nokia’s future.” ZDNet. http://www.zdnet.com/article/android-before-android-the-long-strange-history-of-symbian-and-why-it-matters-for-nokias-future/
Bezroukov, Nikolai. 1999. “Open Source Software Development as a Special Type of Academic Research (Critique of Vulgar Raymondism).” First Monday 4(10).
http://firstmonday.org/article/view/696/606.
Bonaccorsi, Andrea, and Cristina Rossi. 2003. “Why Open Source Software Can Succeed.”
Research Policy 32(7): 1243-58.
Brooks, Frederick P. 1975. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
——— 1995. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, 20th Anniversary Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Clark, David D. 1982. “Modularity and Efficiency in Protocol Implementation.” Network Working Group Request for Comments 817. http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc817.
Clark, Kim, and Carliss Y. Baldwin. 2006. “The Architecture of Participation: Does Code Architecture Mitigate Free Riding in the Open Source Development Model.”
Management Science 52(7): 1116-27.
Conway, Melvin E. 1968. “How Do Committees Invent?” Datamation 14(4): 28-31.
Corbett, Jonathan. 2011. “Android, forking, and control.” https://lwn.net/Articles/446297/.
DiBona, Chris, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone. 1999. “Introduction.” In Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, 8-15. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Dijkstra, Edsger W. 1968. “The Structure of the ‘The’-Multiprogramming System.”
Communications of the ACM 46(11): 341, 343.
Feller, Joseph, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2002. Understanding Open Source Software Development.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Ghosh, Rishab, and V. V. Prakash. 2000. “The Orbiten Free Software Survey.” First Monday 5(7). http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/769/678.
Gilson, David. 2012. “The History of Symbian’s Secret Fragmentation.” All About Symbian.
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/14405_The_History_of_Symbians_Secret .php.
Korzeniowski, Paul. 1985. “Users Laud UNIX Portability, Call Flexibility a Weakness.”
Computerworld 11.
Libicki, Martin C. 1995. Information Technology Standards: Quest for the Common Byte.
Newton, MA: Digital Press.
Lerner, Josh, and Jean Tirole. 2002. “Some Simple Economics of Open Source.” Journal of Industrial Economics 50(2): 197-234.
Maclachlan, Malcolm. 1999. “Panelist Describe Open Source Dictatorships.” TechWeb.com.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060313204003/http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB1 9990812S0003.
Marella, Fabrizio, and Christopher S. Yoo. 2007. “Is Open Source Software the New Lex Mercatoria?” Virginia Journal of International Law 47807–36.
McGee, W. C. 1959. “Generalization: Key to Successful Electronic Data Processing.” Journal of the ACM 6(1): 1-23.
McGowan, David. 2001. “Legal Implications of Open-Source Software.” University of Illinois Law Review (1) 241-304.
McKusick, Marshall Kirk. 1999. “Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable.” In Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, 31-46. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Midha, Vishal, and Prashan Palvia. 2012. “Factors Affecting the Success of Open Source Software.” Journal of Systems and Software 85(4): 895–905.
Mockus, Audris, Roy Fielding, and James Herbsleb. 2000. “A Case Study of Open Source Software Development: The Apache Server.” Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering 263-72.
Open Source Initiative. 2007. The Approved Licenses. http://www.opensource.org/licenses.
Parnas, D. L. 1972. "On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules.”
Communications of the ACM 15(12): 1053–58.
Perens, Bruce. 1999. “The Open Source Definition.” In Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, 79-86. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Raymond, Eric S. 1998. “Homesteading the Noosphere.” First Monday 3: 10.2.
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3-10/raymond/.
———. 1999. The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Simon, Herbert A. 1962. “The Architecture of Complexity.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106(6): 467-482.
Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 30 Massachusetts Law Reporter 417 (Super. Ct. 2012).
Stallman, Richard. 1999. “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement.” In Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, 31-38. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Torvalds, Linus. 1999. “The Linux Edge.” In Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, eds., Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, 101-11. Sebastopol, CA:
O’Reilly Media.
van Rossum, Guido. 2008. “Origin of BDFL.” All Things Pythonic Weblogs.
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=235725.
Weber, Steven. 2004. The Success of Open Source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yamagata, Hiroo. 1997. The Pragmatist of Free Software: Linus Torvalds Interview.
http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html.
Yoo, Christopher S. 2016. “Modularity Theory and Internet Policy.” University of Illinois Law Review (1): 1–62.