Skip to content

31.5: The "Balkanization" Risk

The internet was designed to route around damage—if one path fails, data finds another. Open source was built on similar principles of distributed, resilient collaboration. Yet both now face pressure toward Balkanization—fragmentation into isolated, mutually incompatible regions. Named for the historical division of the Balkan peninsula into small, often hostile states, Balkanization in the technology context describes the breakup of unified global systems into regional variants that cannot easily interoperate.

For open source, Balkanization would mean not just different platforms hosting similar code, but genuinely divergent ecosystems: different versions of foundational software, incompatible standards, duplicated effort, and reduced ability to share security improvements across boundaries. The Linux kernel might fork into variants optimized for different regions. Package ecosystems might split into incompatible registries. Security vulnerabilities might be patched in one region but not another. The global commons would become contested territories.

This scenario is not inevitable, but the trends described in previous sections—regional platforms, sanctions, geopolitical competition—create pressures in this direction. Understanding the dynamics of fragmentation, its security consequences, and the forces working against it helps stakeholders make choices that preserve the global collaboration that makes open source valuable.

Fragmentation Scenarios

Ecosystem fragmentation could occur through several mechanisms, ranging from gradual divergence to acute splits.

Gradual divergence:

The most likely scenario involves slow, incremental separation:

  • Regional platforms develop distinct features and practices
  • Dependencies increasingly come from regional sources
  • Patches and improvements are shared less frequently across boundaries
  • Standards diverge as regional bodies develop different specifications
  • Over time, ecosystems become difficult to reconnect

This scenario doesn't require dramatic breaks—just reduced collaboration compounding over years. Each small decision to use a regional alternative, each patch not shared upstream, each standard developed independently contributes to drift.

Crisis-driven splits:

Acute geopolitical crises could accelerate fragmentation:

  • Major conflict triggering comprehensive sanctions and countersanctions
  • Critical vulnerability discovered in widely-used software, leading to recriminations about responsibility
  • Platform access cut off suddenly, forcing rapid migration to alternatives
  • Government mandates requiring domestic infrastructure use

The 2022 response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine—including GitHub account restrictions, "protestware" incidents, and technology sanctions—demonstrated how quickly technology relationships can change. More severe crises could trigger more comprehensive separations.

Deliberate fragmentation:

Governments might deliberately fragment ecosystems:

  • Mandatory use of domestic platforms for government and critical infrastructure
  • Prohibition on using software from adversary nations
  • Requirements for domestic security review before foreign software adoption
  • Investment in regional alternatives specifically intended to replace global infrastructure

China's development of domestic alternatives—including Gitee, which hosts over 10 million repositories and serves 5+ million developers—represents a deliberate fragmentation strategy, though motivated by sovereignty concerns rather than desire to fragment per se.

Technical fragmentation:

Even without political drivers, technical divergence creates fragmentation:

  • Forks that evolve independently (as happened with UNIX variants in the 1980s-90s: HP-UX, AIX, Solaris)
  • Standards that diverge without coordination
  • Security patches applied inconsistently across variants
  • API changes that break compatibility

Technical fragmentation is harder to reverse than political fragmentation—once codebases diverge significantly, reunification requires substantial effort.

Security Impact of Fragmentation

Fragmentation would significantly harm open source security.

Reduced review:

Global collaboration means more eyes on code:

  • Larger reviewer pools find more vulnerabilities
  • Diverse perspectives identify different issues
  • Competition between reviewers improves quality
  • Fragmentation splits this pool, reducing effectiveness

If the same software exists in multiple regional variants, each variant receives a fraction of the review attention the unified version would. Critical vulnerabilities might be found in one variant but not others—or found independently in each, wasting effort.

Inconsistent patching:

Security fixes might not flow across boundaries:

  • Vulnerability discovered in one regional variant
  • Patch developed and applied locally
  • Other variants remain vulnerable
  • Attackers exploit unpatched versions in other regions

This scenario creates persistent security disparities. Organizations using less-maintained variants face higher risk. Attackers can target specific regions knowing they're likely vulnerable.

Duplicated effort:

Fragmentation multiplies work without multiplying resources:

  • Security teams in each region must independently assess same issues
  • Tooling must be developed multiple times for regional variants
  • Standards bodies duplicate specification work
  • Audits must be repeated for each variant

This duplication wastes resources that could improve security if applied to unified infrastructure.

Trust fragmentation:

Verification infrastructure might not span boundaries:

  • Sigstore—a verification system for software signing—and similar systems might not be trusted across regions
  • Certificate authorities might not be recognized universally
  • Transparency logs might be regional rather than global
  • Provenance attestations might not verify across boundaries

If trust infrastructure fragments, the verification mechanisms providing supply chain security become less effective.

Vulnerability coordination breakdown:

Coordinated disclosure depends on global communication:

  • CVE assignment—the global system for identifying vulnerabilities—might not be recognized across regions if coordination mechanisms fragment
  • Disclosure timelines might not be coordinated
  • Security advisories might not reach all users
  • Patches might not be shared before public disclosure

Fragmented vulnerability coordination leaves users in some regions exposed while others are protected.

Maintainability Challenges

Beyond security, fragmentation creates maintainability problems:

Resource multiplication:

Each regional variant requires:

  • Independent maintainer teams
  • Separate build and release infrastructure
  • Distinct documentation and support
  • Dedicated security response capability

Projects already struggling with maintainer burnout would face impossible demands if they had to maintain multiple regional variants.

Compatibility complexity:

Organizations operating across regions face:

  • Multiple dependency sources to evaluate
  • Compatibility testing across regional variants
  • Different update cycles and versioning schemes
  • Potentially conflicting requirements

Global organizations might need to maintain separate software stacks for different regions, multiplying complexity.

Innovation slowdown:

Fragmentation impedes innovation:

  • Best ideas might not spread across boundaries
  • Innovations in one region might be unavailable elsewhere
  • Standards fragmentation prevents interoperability
  • Collaboration on new challenges becomes harder

Open source's innovation advantage comes from global collaboration—fragmentation undermines this core benefit.

Efforts to Maintain Global Collaboration

Despite pressures toward fragmentation, significant forces work to preserve global open source collaboration.

Foundation neutrality:

Major foundations explicitly maintain neutral, global stance:

  • Linux Foundation: Governance designed for global participation
  • Apache Software Foundation: Operates as a vendor-neutral, community-led organization where contributors participate as individuals based on technical merit
  • Eclipse Foundation: Formally transitioned to EU-based governance in 2021 with global membership
  • CNCF: Cloud native projects with worldwide contributors

These foundations provide institutional homes where collaboration can continue regardless of geopolitical tensions between governments. The Apache Software Foundation's governance principles emphasize technical merit over organizational affiliation, creating a vendor-neutral space for collaboration.

Standards body persistence:

International standards bodies continue operation:

  • IETF: Internet standards developed through global consensus
  • W3C: Web standards with worldwide participation
  • ISO/IEC: International standards coordination
  • OASIS: Open standards development

These bodies provide mechanisms for coordinating standards even when political relationships are strained.

Community resilience:

Open source communities have shown resilience:

  • Developer relationships spanning geopolitical divides
  • Technical collaboration continuing despite government tensions
  • Community norms favoring inclusion over exclusion
  • Shared commitment to open source principles

Individual developers often maintain relationships and collaboration even when their governments are in conflict.

Economic incentives:

Practical economics favor collaboration:

  • Fragmentation increases costs for everyone
  • Global companies need global software
  • Duplication wastes resources that could build better software
  • Network effects favor unified platforms

Economic pressure toward efficiency works against fragmentation, creating countervailing force to political pressure toward separation.

The Future of International Cooperation

Predicting the future of open source cooperation requires acknowledging uncertainty while identifying likely dynamics.

Likely scenarios:

Continued tension without full fragmentation: - Regional platforms coexist with global infrastructure - Some projects maintain global collaboration; others regionalize - Friction increases but complete separation is avoided - Patchwork of cooperation and competition

This scenario reflects the current trajectory—increasing tension without complete break.

Managed competition: - Governments reach understandings about technology competition - Certain areas remain collaborative while others separate - Security coordination continues through neutral channels - Fragmentation is limited to genuinely sensitive areas

This scenario requires political progress that current trends don't suggest.

Accelerated fragmentation: - Major crisis triggers comprehensive separation - Regional ecosystems become primary, global secondary - Interoperability decreases significantly - Recovery becomes difficult even if political conditions improve

This scenario could result from severe geopolitical crisis.

Stabilization and recovery: - Geopolitical tensions ease - Regional platforms integrate with global infrastructure - Collaboration increases from current reduced levels - Open source returns closer to historical global model

This optimistic scenario depends on geopolitical conditions that are difficult to predict.

Most likely:

The most probable near-term future involves muddle-through: continued tension, some fragmentation, but preservation of core collaboration. Neither full fragmentation nor full recovery seems likely in the near term. Organizations should plan for persistent tension rather than resolution in either direction.

Preserving Global Collaboration

Stakeholders can take actions to preserve collaboration and resist unnecessary fragmentation.

For foundations:

  1. Maintain neutrality avoiding alignment with any government
  2. Preserve global governance ensuring worldwide representation
  3. Resist pressure to exclude contributors based on nationality
  4. Provide safe harbor for collaboration that might otherwise cease
  5. Advocate for openness in policy discussions

Foundations are the institutional infrastructure for global collaboration—their choices significantly affect outcomes.

For projects:

  1. Focus on technical merit evaluating contributions on quality not origin
  2. Maintain inclusive governance with global representation
  3. Resist regionalization unless genuinely required
  4. Share security improvements across regional boundaries
  5. Document decisions about any restrictions transparently

Project-level choices aggregate into ecosystem-wide patterns—inclusive choices preserve collaboration.

For companies:

  1. Support neutral foundations through funding and participation
  2. Resist pressure to fragment unless legally required
  3. Maintain global contributor base for projects you sponsor
  4. Use global infrastructure where possible rather than regional alternatives
  5. Advocate internally for collaboration-preserving choices

Corporate decisions about which platforms and projects to support significantly affect fragmentation dynamics.

For governments:

  1. Preserve collaboration space avoiding restrictions broader than security requires
  2. Support neutral institutions that enable continued cooperation
  3. Target restrictions narrowly at genuine security concerns
  4. Maintain coordination channels for security even during political tension
  5. Recognize costs of fragmentation in policy decisions

Government choices are the primary driver of fragmentation pressure—thoughtful policy can limit unnecessary damage.

Recommendations

We recommend stakeholders actively work to preserve global open source collaboration:

Institutional recommendations:

  1. Strengthen neutral governance investing in foundations and standards bodies that provide collaboration infrastructure
  2. Build resilience ensuring institutions can survive increased geopolitical pressure
  3. Diversify geography distributing governance across regions to resist single-region capture
  4. Maintain communication preserving channels for coordination even during acute tensions

Technical recommendations:

  1. Ensure portability avoiding lock-in to any single regional platform
  2. Maintain compatibility working to keep regional variants interoperable
  3. Share security improvements actively pushing fixes across boundaries
  4. Invest in verification building trust mechanisms that work across regions

Community recommendations:

  1. Preserve relationships maintaining developer connections across boundaries
  2. Focus on technical merit resisting pressure to exclude based on origin
  3. Model cooperation demonstrating that productive collaboration remains possible
  4. Document value articulating the benefits of global collaboration

Policy recommendations:

  1. Calibrate restrictions limiting measures to genuine security concerns
  2. Support coordination maintaining vulnerability disclosure and response across boundaries
  3. Fund neutral infrastructure investing in foundations and standards bodies
  4. Plan for recovery designing restrictions that can be lifted when conditions allow

The open source commons is a remarkable human achievement—global collaboration producing shared infrastructure benefiting everyone. Preserving this achievement through a period of geopolitical tension requires deliberate effort. The alternative—fragmented, duplicated, incompatible regional systems—serves no one's interests and would take years to repair even if political conditions improved. The choices made now by foundations, projects, companies, and governments will determine whether the global open source commons survives current tensions or fragments into something much less valuable.