A detailed, balanced look at the current pitfalls of the Open Source model from an author with a huge amount of relevant experience.
It gets a bit close to actively encouraging monopolistic practices, and I'm not at all convinced by the argument that closed commons are, in fact, commons at all any more (feels like that argument results in things like the New York taxi medallion being somehow considered a "commons"), but I do agree with at least one of the conclusions: that we need better, fairer licences. Preferably with baked in requirements for resource sharing (whether fiscal or otherwise).
On the core issue with scaling Open Source projects:
Small Open Source communities can rely on volunteers and self-governance, but as Open Source communities grow, their governance model most likely needs to be reformed so the project can be maintained more easily.
On how funding is only one issue that Open Source models face:
Top of mind is the need for Open Source projects to become more diverse and inclusive of underrepresented groups.
My take: one-directional altruism is invalid, and bidirectional altruism clearly doesn't scale under a capitalist system:
Some may argue that the suggestions I'm making go against the altruistic nature of Open Source. I agree.
On the definition of a "Maker":
I use the term Makers to refer to anyone who purposely and meaningfully invests in the maintenance of Open Source software, i.e. by making engineering investments, writing documentation, fixing bugs, organizing events, and more.
On the definition of "Taker":
We limit the label of Takers to companies that have the means to give back, but choose not to.
On the duality of Open Source in a commercial context:
The difference between Makers and Takers is not always 100% clear, but as a rule of thumb, Makers directly invest in growing both their business and the Open Source project. Takers are solely focused on growing their business and let others take care of the Open Source project they rely on.
Several comments that underscore how broken the concept of "Open Source" is under capitalism:
To be financially successful, many Makers mix Open Source contributions with commercial offerings.
When a Taker invests $950k in closed-source products compared to the Maker's $500k, the Taker can innovate 90% faster.
In other words, Takers reap the benefits of the Makers' Open Source contribution while simultaneously having a more aggressive monetization strategy.
On the crippling impact of capitalism on altruism and morale:
Takers can turn Makers into Takers.
On the economic distinction between a common good and a public good:
Common goods are rivalrous; if one individual catches a fish and eats it, the other individual can't. In contrast, public goods are non-rivalrous; someone listening to the radio doesn't prevent others from listening to the radio.
On an alternative economic model that seems to work, but to me just reads as antithetical to the whole point of a "commons":
Interestingly, all successfully managed commons studied by Ostrom switched at some point from open access to closed access.
On how these models seem to be heading towards collusion, racketeering, and monopolies as the preferred outcome of Open Source projects...
Our two companies would negotiate rules for how to share the rewards of the Open Source project, and what level of contribution would be required in exchange.
And finally, what is, to me, the clear solution:
We can create licenses that better support the creation, growth and sustainability of Open Source projects and that are designed so that both users and the commercial ecosystem can co-exist and cooperate in harmony.
