The Future of Open Source Needs More Give and Less Take

I’ve worked in open source for many years in various functions, including leadership of open source activities, advocacy efforts, community creation and building, and partnering. I’ve worked for large organizations, startups, and foundations. I’ve seen the history, growth, and ups and downs. I deeply love this technology, and I believe it can work.

I see a change in the view of open source, specifically from the organizations that consume open source technologies. It’s becoming more competitive, take-and-don’t-give, and much more selfish.

This is recent, post-pandemic, and as we’ve entered the current economic slowdown. I have my theories on why this is happening now, and in a nutshell, it has to do with correcting past overspending, a job market that has shifted from an employee market to a hiring market, and general contraction as organizations try to survive the current economic environment.

When we get selfish and take and not give back, we ignore the key tenets of open source. A refresher: Open source is about:

• Collaboration
• Contribution
• Transparency
• Open exchange
• Community-oriented development

When we don’t follow the sound and agreed-upon open source principles (see the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of open source as an example), those following the tenets and doing the right thing are forced to change how they do things to survive. No one should expect any organization that is the top contributor to an open source project to fund the engineering, documentation, advocacy, and community activities and then have for-profit organizations not contribute, take others’ efforts, and make money on it.

It’s Just Not Fair, and Frankly, It’s Not Nice.

I’ve been struggling with convincing organizations to contribute since I was at RISC-V (the open source ISA), continued during my tenure at the open source project Kyverno and for-profit Nirmata, and continues now at FreeBSD Foundation.

We didn’t have that problem when I was at Cloud Native Computing Foundation (during the Dan Kohn era), and I’m not sure why other than organizations and individuals wanted to be part of the shinest object in the room and saw the potential for their growth.

If you have taken an open source technology, have incorporated it into your product, and are relying on it for your future revenue, you should contribute not because it’s the right thing to do but because it’s a risk to you if you don’t.

So, Why Are Organizations Not Giving Back???

I’ve never been a fan of negative or fear-based marketing, but now is the time to change my view. It’s time for us in open source to call out the bad behavior for what it is. We must remind organizations that if you don’t contribute to the project in some capacity, that project could go away, and you are stuck with a rip-and-replace. It’s time to recognize (loudly) those organizations that contribute, even if they could be better in their activities or motives. And it’s time to stop with “us and them,” of open source vs. proprietary, of sponsors and vendors vs. projects, of marketing vs. everyone else.

Sponsors and Vendors vs. Open Source Projects

I want to touch briefly on sponsors and vendors vs open source projects. I spoke on this during the fall conference presentations I had in 2023 (see the video from Cloud Native Rejekts). I have a section of that talk where I talk about the elephant in the room. Many of us work for a company that is in the business of generating revenue. They give back to open source, but they are a business.

If the business does not generate revenue from the technologies it contributes to, if it doesn’t have the funds to develop new technologies or provide resources for awareness, help users get started, and support them throughout their journey, the open source jobs disappear.

It’s okay for businesses to make money off their open source efforts. We need to stop chiding organizations that have figured out the open source business model (open core, services and support, education, etc.) and are making money by offering enhanced features and services.

Marketing vs. Everyone

Call it advocacy. Call it communications. But don’t call it marketing.

I don’t know when the word “marketing” became such a bad thing in the developer world, but it is. It could be because bad players figure you out, sell to you, and don’t tell the whole story (if you omit a portion of the story, is it lying?).

I left a job after a short stint when it became clear that the company wanted me to attend open source and developer-focused events, collect names and email addresses, and pass the contact information to an inside sales function. No, thank you — I was not going to trash my reputation!

But there are “good marketers” doing events, going to conferences, and sharing content. We:

• Respect your work, your process, and your privacy.
• We strive to understand what you need to evaluate a technology.
• And we are never going to sell you something.

And you want us good marketers around. We are focused on helping people become aware of technology, use it, and tell their stories about technology use. We are focused on the user’s end-to-end experiences. We let go of control, put the technology decision in the hands of the users, and give the users the content, community, and tools to decide for themselves.

I created a Code of Conduct for Marketing and Communications Teams in Open Source Communities, and I hope the open source community will collaborate to solidify it. I aim to establish trust with the developer community that we will use the information for good and to help them, not help me.

What Do We Do Now?

It’s time for frank, direct, and frequent conversations about what consuming open source means and how you can give back. It’s time to call out the bad players (the non-contributing consumers) and make it well-known who they are and what they are not doing. It’s time to talk about the dark side of not contributing and what can happen if the users do not support the open source project. Unfortunately, it’s time for fear-based marketing.

I’m an optimist, and I can encourage organizations to do the right thing. That is the approach I am taking with the open source projects I work with — I educate, show options, and help organizations make the best decision for them.

But I am at the point where I’m not afraid to go there — to be negative — if that is what I have to do. The future of open source depends on it.