Handling variety: the tension between adaptability and interoperability of open source software

Open source software (OSS) offers unprecedented opportunities to create variety. This could lead to incompatibility and fragmentation. To prevent this some form of coordination is needed. This paper explores which mechanisms of coordination are responsible for limiting divergence in OSS. Two cases are examined: Java and Linux. A systematic difference seems to exist between the mechanisms identified in the two communities. With respect to Java, divergence is where possible avoided ex ante, whereas for Linux divergence is foremost reduced ex post. The conclusion discusses this difference and the implications of both types of coordination in respect to interoperability.

[1]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Strategies for De facto compatibility: Standardization, proprietary and open source approaches to Java , 2001 .

[2]  Jan Ljungberg,et al.  Open source movements as a model for organising , 2000, ECIS.

[3]  Matthias Jarke,et al.  Cooperative Information Systems: A Manifesto * , 1997 .

[4]  Carola Jungwirth,et al.  Reconciling investors and donators - The governance structure of open source , 2002 .

[5]  Guido Hertel,et al.  Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel , 2003 .

[6]  Igor S. Mayer,et al.  Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis , 1997 .

[7]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Why Java™ was - not - standardized twice , 2001, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[8]  David McGowan,et al.  Legal Implications of Open-Source Software , 2000 .

[9]  Vijayan Sugumaran,et al.  A framework for creating hybrid‐open source software communities , 2002, Inf. Syst. J..

[10]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm , 2001, ArXiv.

[11]  Ruben van Wendel de Joode,et al.  Innovation in open source communities through processes of variation and selection , 2004 .

[12]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Upgrades, Tradeins, and Buybacks , 1998 .

[13]  H. Sol,et al.  ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BUILDING BLOCKS IN SIMULATION STUDIES : A LABORATORY EXPERIMENT WITH SIMULATION EXPERTS , 2003 .

[14]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Could Java Change Everything? The Competitive Propriety of a Proprietary Standard , 1998 .

[15]  Mike P. Papazoglou,et al.  Cooperative Information Systems: Trends and Directions , 1997 .

[16]  Susanne K. Schmidt,et al.  Coordinating Technology: Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunications , 1997 .

[17]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility , 1985 .

[18]  Joseph Farrell,et al.  Coordination Through Committees and Markets , 1987 .

[19]  Ruben van Wendel de Joode,et al.  Managing Conflicts in Open Source Communities , 2004, Electron. Mark..

[20]  Rishab Ghosh.  Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm , 2006 .

[21]  E. Hippel.  Innovation by User Communities: Learning From Open-Source Software , 2001 .

[22]  R. Stallman,et al.  Free Software, Free Society , 2002 .

[23]  Peter C. Wayner.  Free for All: How Linux and the Free Software Movement Undercut the High-Tech Titans , 2000 .