| This is a complex and topical issue. It can be viewed in multiple ways, as a philosophy/ideology, a sustainability/societal risk, a degree of freedom and as a socio-economic system. There is also the business of it all. My memory of open source in the early days is that it was a mixture of rebellion and passion interweaved with leftist/anarchist stance. A lot of the freedoms we enjoy today were unthinkable back then. What you could do with software, even if you bought it, was highly restricted. If you read about the history back then, you may come to the conclusion that was totally bizarre. Not only were we restricted on what we can do or how we use software, writing software and making it open could subject the author to legal battles and liability. you know what was the next linux?BSD! but the legal procedures complicated its spread and Linus released the kernel at just the right time. I thank everyone who fought for those freedoms. At that time, most source code that was released under open source licenses(there weren't nearly as many as we have today) was work of passion. I made a few presentations around the world mostly to university students far removed from the bay area to inform them of what is available to them (and secretly convince them to not join the armies developing on a particular platform). Those days are long gone. And that is ok. If "price" and "freedom of expression" were the 2 dimensions the battle was being fought over, then open source won. Things changed from "well..uhmm..there is an open source tool.." -> "It is open source" -> "We are open source!" --> "are you open source?" The open source ecosystem had evolved. I believe in many ways to the better(choice, accessibility, cost) and in some-not-insignificant-ways worse. The accounts of the abuse and hardships maintainers endure are numerous. The bait-and-switch strategy is well documented now. The cloud-eats-opensource is self-evident. The knowledge of the craft, paradoxically, seems more centralized. Certain domains are pretty much proprietary software. Not a bad thing in itself, more like a necessity till economic incentives are better aligned. There are also a few things which I believe we as a community of practitioners maybe conditioned to overlook or only recognise subconsciously: 1- At some point , open source became a marketing ploy, for individuals or organizations. Open source consumers are not blind or oblivious to this, so they may feel they are indeed paying by giving their attention. 2- The price "$0.0" maybe considered the fair price considering the risks("No warranty, etc.") 3- Substitutes, existing or almost-guaranteed to materialize, are in no short supply. 4- Even though the customer(open source consumer) may not expend a monetary sum, they do expend in kind. We all know the efforts required to get most open source software to work, and to make them work together. 5- There is a mutual, likely unconscious, alienation: one group pointing to the other as the one to blame for not making this ecosystem sustainable. It doesn't help the cause to refer to open source consumers as "vultures". It doesn't help to blame corporations(many of which are responsible for massive open source efforts which would not be feasible without those corporate funds). It doesn't help for consumers to exhibit symptoms of entitlement or subject maintainers to outbursts of anger. This doesn't mean to be apologists or ignore unacceptable behavior. More that I believe focusing on the behavior is more productive than focusing on the actors. One group's apathy to the other doesn't help either one. So we have mythos and ethos challenges to deal with. Add globalization and they become far more challenging. In short: 1- We have an economic model that is skewed, on supply side as well as on value capture side. 2- We have an erosion of trust that has been slowly and steadily accumulating over the years. 3- The expectations of the participants are at best ill defined and likely misaligned. 4- Licenses define one type of contract. We are missing "Social" and "Economic" contracts. 5- Speaking of contracts: it can be prohibitively expensive for individual or small teams to consult a lawyer on how to find a balance between open source mythos and economic participation. It can be even more expensive to do that in hindsight. So here FOSS bodies and volunteers could help. We can simulate what happens from here easily. If nothing changes, it doesn't look good. The rising awareness, however, presents some hope and reason for optimism. We could try to exert agency and find mechanisms to correct. more decentralised manners could be better fit and easier to customise. As for a business model, I can't reference any that I believe can be sustainable and result in a viable business. |
> 4- Licenses define one type of contract. We are missing "Social" and "Economic" contracts.
People try to reinforce contributing guidelines but then it's not exactly a panacea.
I definitely think there's an opportunity ( for "disruption"? Heh :)) to bring the structuring, ordering and organizing effects of marketplace transactions to open source to clarify ambiguous expectations, to exercise control over the task flow, to connect the work to market realities and rewards.
But an open source project is actually quite subtle and complex in terms of how it is already structured with respect to the interactions between all stakeholders. And participants. Hundreds of thousands or more of tiny little interactions and moments the contribute to the trajectory of a project. So the idea that a single type of business model could fit everything I think it's misguided but definitely I think there's huge scope for creating improvements here.