I'll respond to the little part where it puts using a "non-OSI approved license" under the umbrella of open source. It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, as the community defined it long ago, and as it still makes sense for it to be defined. If you want me to agree with you, don't do that.
Otherwise, I don't feel compelled to consider a bunch of disparate things as a Win. Here's one that could be more of a trap than a win, depending on the particulars of the job: "Employed by Microsoft to work on Python?" Look no further than https://ghuntley.com/fracture/
He anticipated your comment and already replied. You're free to disagree with him, but he clearly thought that part through already and already knows he disagrees with you and with the OSI. This entire post is his justification for his disagreement, while all you have is an appeal to the OSI definition that he's specifically rejecting.
> “open source” / “free software”
> Note the deliberate use of lower case. I’m not referring to Open Source™ as defined by OSI, nor to Free Software™ as defined by the FSF. I mean these terms in the broadest, most inclusive sense: “software with source code that I can read and modify and release variants of, perhaps under some conditions.” So I’m including OSI and FSF licenses, but also the Polyform licenses and the JSON license and, yes BSL in my version of “open source”.
> This is perhaps a side point, but the “minimalist” definition of Open Source meaning “only OSI-approved licenses” – or, worse, “the GPL is the only ’true’ Free Software license” – is part of the problem here. I want to see more experimentation and variety in licensing options, and if that means introducing some additional restrictions beyond “anyone can use this for any purpose” I’m pretty okay with that. In my book, a broad spectrum of licenses from Blue Oak to BSL (and even more restrictive) “count” as open source.
> ... I’ll put it this way: if my sloppy use of these terms bothers you in the context of talking about how people make their living, it implies that you care more about terminology and definitions than about the people, and I’d like you to sit in that discomfort for a while.
By picking his own definition of what open source means, is the author really arguing for paying people to work on open source? Or is his argument more one of being in favor allowing a bunch of things that happen to pay people to work on them be counted as "open source"?
For example, if RHEL still counts as open source, then Red Hat's programmers are paid open source developers, but if RHEL is now proprietary, then there are fewer people being paid to work on open source.
I think this is a pretty good microcosm of the whole debate in this one sentence where you say:
> It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, ...
> ... as the community defined it long ago, ...
Yep, definitely! Nobody disagrees that the OSI defined this long ago.
> ... and as it still makes sense for it to be defined.
Maybe! But that's where the debate is. Is that the most sensible definition? Perhaps, even probably, yes. But it's also a totally valid question to interrogate. And that's what people are doing.
> I'll respond to the little part where it puts using a "non-OSI approved license" under the umbrella of open source. It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, as the community defined it long ago, and as it still makes sense for it to be defined
So what would you call a license that meets OSI's open source definition [1] but has not been OSI-approved?
OSI no longer approves new licenses unless they think the new license fills a gap that is not filled by existing OSI-approved licenses, which means there are millions of possible new licenses that meet every criteria of their open source definition but will become OSI-approved.
I'm undecided if it would be a net good or bad. If you think government should subsidize infrastructure that creates value that's hard to bill to users (like roads), then software is a pretty logical extension. However, given my personal knowledge of transportation project delivery and the astronomical amount of waste it includes, I suspect this might just make things worse.
I want to agree, and I understand the position, but there's no room for nuance when you throw around the work 'always'.
I think I disagree that it is always good.
For instance, if a company is paying someone to work on open source, and they use that to leverage the project in a direction that is against its other users' best interest, can that be good? I don't think so.
There are numerous examples of situations and behaviors you could come up with that are not 'good'.
I'm all for people making a living, but I don't like bad behavior, no matter if it generates 'freeish' source code or not.
It's a matter of not letting "perfect" get in the way of "good". You're totally right, we should work towards getting everyone who wants to work on open source code bases the public funds they deserve at every opportunity, but in the mean time, we'll have to put up with corpos funding some of the FLOSS code.
> We have to accept the world as it is – even if it’s not the world we want. This means we have to be okay with the idea that maintainers need to be paid. Far too often I see arguments like: “maintainers shouldn’t be paid by private companies because the government should be supporting them.” Sure, this sounds great – but governments aren’t doing this! So this argument reduces to “open source maintainers shouldn’t be paid”. I can’t get on board with that.
That's why the open source communities themselves should be funding their own projects. Because if the communities and users dont fund their own projects, private corporations will fund them and they will have the say. Open Source must not become outsourced 'free labor' which major corporations can leech on. The best way to do it has been the 'freemium' format that is used in the Wordpress ecosystem and a few others - the open source shop creates and maintains a free version of their software under GPL2+, and sells downloads, update licenses & support for more advanced addons. The WP ecosystem was able to float itself with this method without taking in investor money or corporate money, and the software shops that exist in that ecosystem are able to pay their developers living wages. The entire ecosystem was created and is still floated by the open source software producers and the community members.
Basically, open source is like politics: Who funds it gets the say. And just like politics, we need to make sure that the communities are self-sustaining economically so that external money wont call the shots.
I know that a lot of us in open source software are very proud with our voluntary work and its contributions to open source. That is accurate and praise worthy.
But what do we do when we get up in the morning and go to work?
We each work in a private company that seeks to maximize its market share and gain more control of the economy, bar a minority of us who work in actual open source jobs. In one hand, we are giving something tangible to open source with our contributions, but the work that we have to do in our day job in a private corporation takes a lot of that away because the organized, concentrated impact of a large private organization with a lot of money goes much further than the heroic efforts of collectives of volunteers.
That is why open source must fund itself and become its own economic and political power. Otherwise we will always be giving with one hand with our contributions but involuntarily taking back with the other hand because of the work we have to do in private corporations. And this is without mentioning that if we dont fund & float our own ecosystems and become a collective economic and political power as a community in our own right, we will always be rule-takers and will always have to fight the attempts of the private lobbies at destroying open source.
Basically we must create our own world. And in that world, we must be able to work in, make money with, and live with open source.
This is why grants are really important. That usually means deliverables in a specific timeframe. To me, that elevates open source from a full-time hobby to a job.
Well that's just an implied always. Is it likely good? No, probably not. Is it always bad? No, probably not. It's conceivable that there are a lot more potential users in the direction the company wants to drag the project, and the few current users can fork it.
This is as good a context as any to remind people of the origins of the Open Source Initiative and its definitions. Here's how the OSI described its history on its website in 2007 (emphasis added):
> The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape. They brainstormed about tactics and a new label. ... A month later ... the participants voted to promote the use of the term 'open source', and agreed to adopt with it the new rhetoric of pragmatism and market-friendliness that Raymond had been developing.
I find it a bit amusing that here we are, decades later, and people who use non-OSI licenses to try to thwart exploitation by enormous corporations are condemned on highly moralistic grounds for not being "truly open source".
Even businesses care about the distinction between OSI-approved and SSPL/BUSL licensed code bases. In the latter, they often cannot host services that use BUSL licensed code which puts risks on the business. Some examples:
Do they need to consult with a lawyer to understand if their particular use case is acceptable?
If not now, then how do they know when that threshold is met?
When the service is offered for revenue?
Or only when offered directly to customers?
What about if theirs is a consulting-structured business e.g., IBM or Collins, where any internally service provided to another team is billed and paid for internal to the company (even though its not paid for by an external customer)?
Can they hire developers to contribute to the code when the upstream is unresponsive to their bugs/features? Or, if they have to integrate with other custom internal infrastructure/tooling? Are they free to remix these tools into larger projects of theirs?
It is possible to separate the moralizing aspects of these licenses and articulate concerns strictly in business cases that make them unsuitable for OSI and thus not "open source" in spirit.
The community I've been most involved in over the past few years has been R/tidyverse. Some developers are paid (by RStudio [now Posit] and other orgs, like R Consortium) to work on software, docs, community initiatives etc.
The experience as a programmer in this domain is amazing. Having these funded full time OSS contributors lets thousands of R enthusiasts (like me) benefit because someone incredibly high-leverage was paid to give a lot of their time to a project. So when you go to use that library, its docs are immaculate (I'm thinking all the tidyverse packages, Shiny, RMarkdown etc), and the examples are simple and brilliant. Getting up and running is often as little as taking an educated guess at how it would work, and often that's exactly how the function/package was designed! Having at least one dedicated person seems to dramatically improve the quality of OSS, possibly because it helps organise the dozens of people each making smaller contributions.
I suspect this works so well because open source projects sometimes don't attract attention to key areas like documentation, and UX (some of my most-loved OSS projects still have horrendous UX because, I suspect, contributors love to add things but nobody wants to be the person who organises it into a coherent package for users, much less remove people's contributions because they're unnecessary and confuse users).
When I contrast the experience with communities that have much fewer (or no) full time funded OSS contributors, there's much more niggle and inconsistency with libraries, interoperability, and especially in documentation.
Sorry, I'm rambling, but the R community has been an amazing example of how paying a few dozen full time OSS people can have a dramatically outsized benefit to the community for years to come. I'm very appreciative I get to stand on the shoulders of these humble giants.
I donate to a decent number of open source projects. Others I think are more than fine without me (Linux kernel, etc.) but I wouldn’t hesitate to donate if I believed they weren’t.
For the rest, I would indeed as happily see them fail than compromise on the definition of open source. The two are equivalent to me.
I don't understand when it became this was FOSS was always about "Free as in speech." But for some reason it became "Free as in beer." and many of the arguments I see around dev pay seem to be conflating the 2.
Open source merely means the source is open and free for you to view look at modify, etc. At no point does it mean it costs nothing. Now with code it's not exactly a super reasonable business model to sell a software product but make it's code freely available, but that would still meet the definition of open source.
I think the thing is that it's always been both. The freedom to hack and modify has always been inextricably linked with the $0 license fee. If the early free/open licenses had allowed source access and modification but come with a license fee, or if early FOSS had cost nothing to use but disallowed modification, I don't think we'd have seen the success that we have. The two senses of "free" in "free software" are and always have been linked.
The reality noone wants to admit is that most people use and patronize FOSS because it's free-as-in-beer and nothing else. Nobody cares about freedoms, but everyone cares about their bottom line.
This extends to even most of the FOSS devs themselves, refusing pay and ostracizing those who accept pay because money to them is kryptonite.
In my opinion, this philosophy that runs counter to a very fundamental law of the world (everything, including manhours, requires compensation) plays one of the largest roles in keeping FOSS behind both commercial and proprietary/closed software.
Perhaps unpopular opinion, but it's because the 0$ cost is what 99% of OSS users care about.
Since it requires no investment on part of the user, it increases the potential target market to a much larger size than it would if it were paid. There's just something about things being free that break people's minds.
There's even a study on this where they offered chocolates for free vs 0.01$, and the free option was much more popular even though the 0.01$ chocolate was much higher quality and much better value for a very negligible difference.
Lots of users just want to download something, use it for a few minutes and be done with it. Or at least try it out and know that they can fall back to a free version at worst and not feel like they made a bad investment.
This blog post interprets saying “it’s not open source, though” as if it were a criticism of releasing software under various other source-available licenses.
Maybe some people mean it that way, but for me it’s purely about not watering down terms that have a clear meaning. Sometimes source-available licenses are better for the business and it’s understandable why some businesses do that. It’s less generous, but still a good thing.
(Just like it’s understandable that people don’t make source code available for all their software.)
I think cooperatively owned tech orgs are the future. Contribution to open source software will always lag behind private entities as people aren't prone to work for free.
Are there any open source projects that are monetized/pay their contributors?
If I ever get a successful startup going, I am going to explore this model.
I'm a developer with 15+ YOE, working mostly on legacy code in a govt job but I have extensive experience with modern code bases (C, Rust), and I have contributed to lots of FOSS of projects over the years in my free time as a way to learn new tech. I would work full time on Open Source if I was paid enough to leave my 9-5 job, which is not a lot in a third world country like mine. Say, $1500 / month.
Did the author actually want to rant about the "paying people to work on <something>" part, or was it just an excuse to be controversial about the very definition of open source? Not clear to me.
But if it was the former, what a way to shoot oneself in the foot!
The author was fed up of people saying "well actually your achievement in getting paid to work on open source shouldn't be celebrated because of <list of pedantic reasons>" - one of which was license definition arguments. That's why he chose to be controversial about that.
My (very small) tech nonprofit has started doing something similar [1], where everyone contributes to a list of OSS tools we use heavily, and then everyone gives a weight/score to each tool.
We then split the pot ($1,000 in 2022, probably ~$2,000 when I get around to doing 2023) among all the OSS projects, according to the relative scores.
“Far too often I see arguments like: “maintainers shouldn’t be paid by private companies because the government should be supporting them.” Sure, this sounds great – but governments aren’t doing this!”
While I have made a few OSS donations, I want to avoid doing so out of principle. I, a lone developer, should not be funding the work my peers do.
How much does openssl benefit me personally? How much does eslint? However much, it’s negligible to how much it benefits my employer. Which in turn is negligible to Google.
This is a responsibility that big tech ought to pick up, not random people.
I know it's not about the definition of open source, but that's actually what I found interesting from the article :-). It would have been so simple for the author to acknowledge the actual definition of "open source" and to just mention that their opinion extends to other models... Anyway:
- I did not know the BSL! That actually sounds like a pretty great idea: my understanding is that the company makes the code source-available but with a deadline (of maximum 4 years): after that deadline, the code becomes GPLv2. If more companies used that instead of proprietary, it would be a win for open source in the long run (because more code would become GPLv2)!
- I am also discovering Polyform. That's fun, but less exciting to me than the BSL.
- The JSON license seems to be purposely annoying. Reads like some kind of "Fuck you" to the very concept of licenses.
There is another potential source of funding for open source that is quite congruent to its ethos and that is the public sector. For many types of software used by public sector entities it would be quite efficient to support open source development as a public good.
There will always be points of view that would consider this (too) as a problematic source of funding (e.g., being suspicious of government actors and their motives) and it can be a major hassle to handle public sector bureaucracy, but given the distribution of demand for software in the economy it seems something natural to some extend and it could alleviate some of the sustainability issues with open source development.
I've always thought a neat model would be something like: pay for convenience, for example, something like: to run git pull/clone, you have to purchase "premium" access to their repo, but the code's available and you can just download a tar.gz of it if you want. No way would a company balk at paying a little to have a more reasonable system for updates, etc, but the code is still fully open source, free software, etc.
Good piece, but it buries the lede. I suspect the reaction would be different if it started with the conclusion. Otherwise, the title and introduction sounds like another article about direct contributions to maintainers instead of being agnostic about how the maintainers get paid. I think “Purity only serves to limit open source’s value to society” is a great debate topic.
A note to writers: when you find yourself writing a paragraph defensively justifying alienating your intended audience, take a walk around the block and think really hard about whether doing so is a good idea.
I will never compromise on the definition of open source. I'm not particularly hard-nosed about proprietary software, or source available software either, they're fine, with some caveats I'll leave out.
But it's important to have a term for software which is unencumbered by use restrictions, and we do: open source. Lumping other licenses in with it should be resisted. It's like (I've never seen this, to be clear) pescatarians rebranding as "seafood vegans". What is supposed to be gained there, or by trying to bolt on various source-available licenses to the definition of open source?
So this guy picks an important topic, and right up front, he's telling me he knows that it's going to piss me off, but he's going to call not-open-source software open source anyway, and if I object, I don't care about developers getting paid.
> A note to writers: when you find yourself writing a paragraph defensively justifying alienating your intended audience, take a walk around the block and think really hard about whether doing so is a good idea.
I really dislike this kind of "geez, read the room!" thinking. Not everybody needs to have the same opinion about everything. Not everybody should. The opinion of "the room" or in your terminology, the "intended audience", is ever-evolving and the way that happens is via people talking and writing about their own opinions that aren't identical to the prevailing views of the time.
But it's fine that you disagree with the author about this and are unswayed by the author's arguments. Others will agree with the author and be unswayed by your counter-arguments, and that's fine too. Still others will change their views after reading the article or responses to it, and that's also fine. Maybe the prevailing view will shift as a result of all this discussion, maybe it won't. This is how discourse works!
You’re talking about someone who’s been working in open source for decades, on pretty successful projects. He knew with absolute certainty that mentioning licensing will lead to pedantic rancor, and that’s unavoidable: there is literally no way to raise this topic in a way someone will not passionately disagree with, and that’s going to distract from the more important topic he wanted to discuss.
For example:
> But it's important to have a term for software which is unencumbered by use restrictions, and we do: open source.
This phrasing means the GPL and MIT licenses are not open source. I doubt that’s what you meant, but simply raising the topic means that we’ll be debating exactly which use restrictions can dance on the head of a pin rather than the real substance of this essay: we all use open source software, we should be talking about how to make it pay a decent living!
The goal isn’t for every dev or project to make money or be sustainable in open source, just as it isn’t for every business idea to succeed.
I donate to numerous open source projects and make a point of donating more than I believe they’d charge me to buy/subscribe if the software wasn’t open source. I encourage others to do so too, I sincerely hope and believe we can see that happen. I’d love to see more truly open source software become sustainable, of course.
But I don’t kid myself that it all will be. And I don’t care to relax the definition to include open core, VC exploitative, bait and switch, or whatever (have we learnt nothing in the last two decades?!). If the project dies it dies, if it stays a hobby project that’s ok too.
Recently there was a discussion[0] around the value of open source software and how much companies would have had to pay to have it developed from the ground up.
I've put some serious thought into solving this problem. There are two main structural issues I know of:
1. Open source libraries tend to be complement goods. You're more willing to pay for a good physics engine if you already have a good rendering engine and vice versa. But a sad truth of complement goods is that they are a centralizing force - it's actually better for everyone if the physics engine maker and rendering engine maker join forces and offer a bundle discount. But the most common strategy seems to be for them to just merge into one company, and this is why you see giant conglomerate products like Unreal and Unity instead of buying each component from a different vendor.
2. Since open source software is a public good (non-rivalrous, non-excludable), the "free market" cannot really incentivize its production nearly as much as would be optimal. Let's say there are 1000 people who would each pay $10 for a feature to be added, and the maintainer would happily add it for $5000. If 90% of those people each paid $6 they would get what they want and the maintainer would be happy too, but each individual has an incentive to be part of that 10% that gets to keep their $6 and still gets the feature, so what happens is that almost no one ends up paying.
These problems can't be solved without slightly modifying open source, but they can be solved by maintaining the spirit of open source I think. What you need is to have some kind of foundation that takes money and gives it to "quasi-open-source" projects, and then only allows businesses to use those projects if they contribute a certain percentage of their revenue to the foundation. Of course, now the foundation needs to decide which open source projects to give the money too. It's an extremely tricky problem, but there's been a lot of interesting research by Glen Weyl on that exact subject and I'm confident it could be solved in a satisfactory way.
I think this proposal would create a virtuous cycle once it got off the ground. The more projects licensed "quasi-open-source", the larger the incentive to pay the foundation to use them. The more the foundation is paid, the more money these "quasi-open-source" projects get, and so more people will license their projects "quasi-open-source", increasing the incentive again, etc.
Of course, it would only be "quasi-open-source", and not truly open-source. But there's no reason the license couldn't be extremely in line with the spirit of open source. For example, it could say "if you're an individual or small company, you can use our code for any purpose for free. If you're a big company, you can use it in a way that complies with the AGPL or you can pay us, your choice".
I think employees would also encourage their employers to become paying members of such a foundation, if it lead to those employees being able to determine where some of the money goes. Everyone at my current company is a Rust developer and so we naturally like Rust, but Rust jobs aren't always easy to find. As employees, it could be in our best interest to subsidize the development of Rust open source projects, if that increased Rust's attractiveness to other companies.
If you're interested in this idea, my email is in my bio :D
You don't need "quasi-open-source" to solve the coordination problem you describe. It can be solved with a threshold pledge system[0]. People agree to donate money, and the developer agrees to release the code once sufficient money is donated. There can be a time limit after which the donations are returned if the threshold isn't met.
This has actually worked in practice: Blender was originally proprietary software, but the copyright holder agreed to release it under the GPL after collecting 100K EUR in donations. After 7 weeks they collected enough donations and Blender was released as FOSS as promised.
> It’s one of the few places where essentially all of humanity works together on something that benefits everyone. A world without open source would be substantially worse than the world we live in.
No it’s actually terrible. Because then they will eventually abandon the project and you’re stuck with it in your stack. Now you become the maintainer.
So many strawmen being set-up in this article the crow population is gonna take a major nose dive.
If I hate any specific business model that is used by a company that does some some open source suddenly I don't think people deserve to be paid for their work?
Yeah no, that's garbage. There's plenty of garbage business models and they aren't suddenly okay because one company uses it and 1% of their money funds some small bit of OSS work that underpins their business model.
Did anyone following this in Mastodon-land specifically see any reaction to "luxury automated gay space communism?" I would be surprised if he wasn't blasted for that.
This article came across as much less ranty than I expected based on his disclaimer. I think he pretty much perfectly articulated the noise around funded open source.
If we're going to ignore the "official" meaning of open source, then let's take a step back to consider why open source is worth supporting in the first place.
Open source guarantees to me, the user, that competition among vendors will be possible and fair in the future. This is exactly the point that many "fake OSS" licenses try to take away. Okay, maybe it's possible to fork for personal on-prem use, but god forbid someone creates a competing hosted solution that gives any customer more choice. Furthermore, these pieces of software are fucked the day that the company folds, or gets acquired by a malevolent buyer.
Open source guarantees a baseline level of respect towards me, the end user. By letting anyone fork a project that's gone too far in the wrong direction, I know that my software will continue working in the short run and of it's important enough, a competing alternative will emerge that continues without one-sided money or data grabs.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having someone from Microsoft or Google work on open source software, or any VC-funded company that will without fail turn against their users sooner or later. However, if a controlling majority of developers is employed this way, it provides an opportunity for what elsewhere is known as regulatory capture. If Microsoft's goal is to make people dependent on proprietary GitLab and VS Code Marketplace offerings, and Google's goal is to provide the greatest possible amount of ads and tracking to the largest possible user base, it does not matter if the software is open source or not. The end result is the same, I'm left without viable alternatives and big business gets to do with us whatever the hell they please.
Especially when this software becomes ubiquitous and entrenched, paying developers to work on company-controlled OSS instead of community-driven, user-respecting OSS is a net negative for everyone in the long run.
I'm only interested in OSS in so far as it protects my interests as an end user, and/or our common interests as a society, now and in the future. The collaborative aspect is nice, but that's not the reason that we should ask for better compensation for maintainers.
The "Open Source" label as such is indeed meaningless per se, and it doesn't always protect me either, as seen with BSD+MIT software allowing cryptographically-enabled control of devices that I nominally own, or GPL being useless when there is no actual distribution of software involved. That said, I have yet to see a case of non-OSI "open source" that doesn't try to tilt the playing field in biased, controlling and long-term unsustainable or user-hostile ways.
If you can't build a business on a level playing field, perhaps it's in everyone's interest that your business and software dies, or retreats into lower-intensity hobbyist maintainership, instead of leading everyone into a hard dependency on your oh so well-intended monetization of originally useful software. Then at least someone else can take a shot at doing it better.
Those are some pretty twisted reasons to support open source. First of all, you are not a "user" if you use open source. You are an owner. Open source gives you the freedom to control the development process of the software. It sounds like what you want is the freedom to have other people serving you. Also, an inventor who chooses to reserve some rights to control their invention is not acting anti-competitively. You're disagreeing with both law and morality by thinking that. You are not entitled to anything. Open source usually happens because the inventor has nothing to gain from exerting personal control through legal means over their invention. So what it in effect does, is it gives you the power to take control and participate in its development, as an equal, rather than a mere consumer. You can't walk into open source with the consumer mindset because that's just not how things work. Companies like Microsoft that retain full control over their software will break their backs to serve you, because they're the only ones who can. But you can't expect that kind of service from people who are simply trying to give you the DIY tools to do it yourself.
A pro capitalist message from Jacobin? [Looks closer.] No.
I'd pay for an open source project that could filter & sort news by surprisingness-for-that-news-source. This opinion would rank high for jacobin.com. The story about Zuckerberg's preference for the Quest 3 over the AVP would disappear.
But even so, paying people for their labor is entirely uncontroversial amongst socialists. Some might even argue it's the fundamental underpinning of their critique of capitalism.
The premise of paid open source devs is fine and well, but every single one of these blogs devolves into delusional utopian nonsense from people who do not understand the staggering infrastructure and maintenance cost of the modern society they think should be some sort of guaranteed right. People, please learn and understand where your food comes from before writing this kind of garbage.
TFA’s author is one of the co-creators of Django and a preeminent member of the Python community. I think it would be charitable to assume that he does, in fact, understand these things.
FWIW, the author was at least thoughtful enough to include this disclaimer at the top:
> Warning: rant ahead. I’m writing from a place of frustration and not particularly interested in trying to moderate my tone. If you don’t want to hear me yell about open source for a while, please skip this one.
benatkin|2 years ago
Otherwise, I don't feel compelled to consider a bunch of disparate things as a Win. Here's one that could be more of a trap than a win, depending on the particulars of the job: "Employed by Microsoft to work on Python?" Look no further than https://ghuntley.com/fracture/
lolinder|2 years ago
> “open source” / “free software”
> Note the deliberate use of lower case. I’m not referring to Open Source™ as defined by OSI, nor to Free Software™ as defined by the FSF. I mean these terms in the broadest, most inclusive sense: “software with source code that I can read and modify and release variants of, perhaps under some conditions.” So I’m including OSI and FSF licenses, but also the Polyform licenses and the JSON license and, yes BSL in my version of “open source”.
> This is perhaps a side point, but the “minimalist” definition of Open Source meaning “only OSI-approved licenses” – or, worse, “the GPL is the only ’true’ Free Software license” – is part of the problem here. I want to see more experimentation and variety in licensing options, and if that means introducing some additional restrictions beyond “anyone can use this for any purpose” I’m pretty okay with that. In my book, a broad spectrum of licenses from Blue Oak to BSL (and even more restrictive) “count” as open source.
> ... I’ll put it this way: if my sloppy use of these terms bothers you in the context of talking about how people make their living, it implies that you care more about terminology and definitions than about the people, and I’d like you to sit in that discomfort for a while.
cratermoon|2 years ago
For example, if RHEL still counts as open source, then Red Hat's programmers are paid open source developers, but if RHEL is now proprietary, then there are fewer people being paid to work on open source.
sanderjd|2 years ago
> It's not OSI approved because it isn't open source, ...
> ... as the community defined it long ago, ...
Yep, definitely! Nobody disagrees that the OSI defined this long ago.
> ... and as it still makes sense for it to be defined.
Maybe! But that's where the debate is. Is that the most sensible definition? Perhaps, even probably, yes. But it's also a totally valid question to interrogate. And that's what people are doing.
tzs|2 years ago
So what would you call a license that meets OSI's open source definition [1] but has not been OSI-approved?
OSI no longer approves new licenses unless they think the new license fills a gap that is not filled by existing OSI-approved licenses, which means there are millions of possible new licenses that meet every criteria of their open source definition but will become OSI-approved.
[1] https://opensource.org/osd/
hardcopy|2 years ago
NLNet in the EU is awesome. We really should have something like the NLNet in the USA.
onthecanposting|2 years ago
lucb1e|2 years ago
paulddraper|2 years ago
Ferret7446|2 years ago
[deleted]
gorjusborg|2 years ago
I think I disagree that it is always good.
For instance, if a company is paying someone to work on open source, and they use that to leverage the project in a direction that is against its other users' best interest, can that be good? I don't think so.
There are numerous examples of situations and behaviors you could come up with that are not 'good'.
I'm all for people making a living, but I don't like bad behavior, no matter if it generates 'freeish' source code or not.
jszymborski|2 years ago
It's a matter of not letting "perfect" get in the way of "good". You're totally right, we should work towards getting everyone who wants to work on open source code bases the public funds they deserve at every opportunity, but in the mean time, we'll have to put up with corpos funding some of the FLOSS code.
> We have to accept the world as it is – even if it’s not the world we want. This means we have to be okay with the idea that maintainers need to be paid. Far too often I see arguments like: “maintainers shouldn’t be paid by private companies because the government should be supporting them.” Sure, this sounds great – but governments aren’t doing this! So this argument reduces to “open source maintainers shouldn’t be paid”. I can’t get on board with that.
zrn900|2 years ago
Basically, open source is like politics: Who funds it gets the say. And just like politics, we need to make sure that the communities are self-sustaining economically so that external money wont call the shots.
I know that a lot of us in open source software are very proud with our voluntary work and its contributions to open source. That is accurate and praise worthy.
But what do we do when we get up in the morning and go to work?
We each work in a private company that seeks to maximize its market share and gain more control of the economy, bar a minority of us who work in actual open source jobs. In one hand, we are giving something tangible to open source with our contributions, but the work that we have to do in our day job in a private corporation takes a lot of that away because the organized, concentrated impact of a large private organization with a lot of money goes much further than the heroic efforts of collectives of volunteers.
That is why open source must fund itself and become its own economic and political power. Otherwise we will always be giving with one hand with our contributions but involuntarily taking back with the other hand because of the work we have to do in private corporations. And this is without mentioning that if we dont fund & float our own ecosystems and become a collective economic and political power as a community in our own right, we will always be rule-takers and will always have to fight the attempts of the private lobbies at destroying open source.
Basically we must create our own world. And in that world, we must be able to work in, make money with, and live with open source.
smburdick|2 years ago
thfuran|2 years ago
Well that's just an implied always. Is it likely good? No, probably not. Is it always bad? No, probably not. It's conceivable that there are a lot more potential users in the direction the company wants to drag the project, and the few current users can fork it.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
lolinder|2 years ago
> The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape. They brainstormed about tactics and a new label. ... A month later ... the participants voted to promote the use of the term 'open source', and agreed to adopt with it the new rhetoric of pragmatism and market-friendliness that Raymond had been developing.
I find it a bit amusing that here we are, decades later, and people who use non-OSI licenses to try to thwart exploitation by enormous corporations are condemned on highly moralistic grounds for not being "truly open source".
http://web.archive.org/web/20071115150105/https://opensource...
cipherboy|2 years ago
Do they need to consult with a lawyer to understand if their particular use case is acceptable?
If not now, then how do they know when that threshold is met?
When the service is offered for revenue?
Or only when offered directly to customers?
What about if theirs is a consulting-structured business e.g., IBM or Collins, where any internally service provided to another team is billed and paid for internal to the company (even though its not paid for by an external customer)?
Can they hire developers to contribute to the code when the upstream is unresponsive to their bugs/features? Or, if they have to integrate with other custom internal infrastructure/tooling? Are they free to remix these tools into larger projects of theirs?
It is possible to separate the moralizing aspects of these licenses and articulate concerns strictly in business cases that make them unsuitable for OSI and thus not "open source" in spirit.
nomilk|2 years ago
The experience as a programmer in this domain is amazing. Having these funded full time OSS contributors lets thousands of R enthusiasts (like me) benefit because someone incredibly high-leverage was paid to give a lot of their time to a project. So when you go to use that library, its docs are immaculate (I'm thinking all the tidyverse packages, Shiny, RMarkdown etc), and the examples are simple and brilliant. Getting up and running is often as little as taking an educated guess at how it would work, and often that's exactly how the function/package was designed! Having at least one dedicated person seems to dramatically improve the quality of OSS, possibly because it helps organise the dozens of people each making smaller contributions.
I suspect this works so well because open source projects sometimes don't attract attention to key areas like documentation, and UX (some of my most-loved OSS projects still have horrendous UX because, I suspect, contributors love to add things but nobody wants to be the person who organises it into a coherent package for users, much less remove people's contributions because they're unnecessary and confuse users).
When I contrast the experience with communities that have much fewer (or no) full time funded OSS contributors, there's much more niggle and inconsistency with libraries, interoperability, and especially in documentation.
Sorry, I'm rambling, but the R community has been an amazing example of how paying a few dozen full time OSS people can have a dramatically outsized benefit to the community for years to come. I'm very appreciative I get to stand on the shoulders of these humble giants.
4kimov|2 years ago
Amen. It's becoming more common, and there's lots to celebrate [0]
[0] https://fossfox.com/
barnabee|2 years ago
For the rest, I would indeed as happily see them fail than compromise on the definition of open source. The two are equivalent to me.
gustavus|2 years ago
Open source merely means the source is open and free for you to view look at modify, etc. At no point does it mean it costs nothing. Now with code it's not exactly a super reasonable business model to sell a software product but make it's code freely available, but that would still meet the definition of open source.
jacobian|2 years ago
Dalewyn|2 years ago
This extends to even most of the FOSS devs themselves, refusing pay and ostracizing those who accept pay because money to them is kryptonite.
In my opinion, this philosophy that runs counter to a very fundamental law of the world (everything, including manhours, requires compensation) plays one of the largest roles in keeping FOSS behind both commercial and proprietary/closed software.
wmf|2 years ago
preommr|2 years ago
Since it requires no investment on part of the user, it increases the potential target market to a much larger size than it would if it were paid. There's just something about things being free that break people's minds.
There's even a study on this where they offered chocolates for free vs 0.01$, and the free option was much more popular even though the 0.01$ chocolate was much higher quality and much better value for a very negligible difference.
Lots of users just want to download something, use it for a few minutes and be done with it. Or at least try it out and know that they can fall back to a free version at worst and not feel like they made a bad investment.
skybrian|2 years ago
Maybe some people mean it that way, but for me it’s purely about not watering down terms that have a clear meaning. Sometimes source-available licenses are better for the business and it’s understandable why some businesses do that. It’s less generous, but still a good thing.
(Just like it’s understandable that people don’t make source code available for all their software.)
andoando|2 years ago
Are there any open source projects that are monetized/pay their contributors?
If I ever get a successful startup going, I am going to explore this model.
FOSSwins|2 years ago
palata|2 years ago
But if it was the former, what a way to shoot oneself in the foot!
simonw|2 years ago
PaulDavisThe1st|2 years ago
As a member of the zero, I approve the title of TFA.
bugbuddy|2 years ago
brational|2 years ago
abound|2 years ago
We then split the pot ($1,000 in 2022, probably ~$2,000 when I get around to doing 2023) among all the OSS projects, according to the relative scores.
[1] https://siliconally.org/policies/open-source/#yearly-donatio...
devmor|2 years ago
fydorm|2 years ago
sumuyuda|2 years ago
Governments are doing this. The German government funds https://www.sovereigntechfund.de/
sattoshi|2 years ago
How much does openssl benefit me personally? How much does eslint? However much, it’s negligible to how much it benefits my employer. Which in turn is negligible to Google.
This is a responsibility that big tech ought to pick up, not random people.
palata|2 years ago
- I did not know the BSL! That actually sounds like a pretty great idea: my understanding is that the company makes the code source-available but with a deadline (of maximum 4 years): after that deadline, the code becomes GPLv2. If more companies used that instead of proprietary, it would be a win for open source in the long run (because more code would become GPLv2)!
- I am also discovering Polyform. That's fun, but less exciting to me than the BSL.
- The JSON license seems to be purposely annoying. Reads like some kind of "Fuck you" to the very concept of licenses.
openrisk|2 years ago
There will always be points of view that would consider this (too) as a problematic source of funding (e.g., being suspicious of government actors and their motives) and it can be a major hassle to handle public sector bureaucracy, but given the distribution of demand for software in the economy it seems something natural to some extend and it could alleviate some of the sustainability issues with open source development.
flynnz|2 years ago
johngossman|2 years ago
gavinhoward|2 years ago
https://gavinhoward.com/2023/12/is-source-available-really-t...
I also think that forcing companies to accept liability would fund FOSS.
https://gavinhoward.com/2023/11/how-to-fund-foss-save-it-fro...
Do it right, and the most important projects would be the ones flush with cash.
davepeck|2 years ago
samatman|2 years ago
I will never compromise on the definition of open source. I'm not particularly hard-nosed about proprietary software, or source available software either, they're fine, with some caveats I'll leave out.
But it's important to have a term for software which is unencumbered by use restrictions, and we do: open source. Lumping other licenses in with it should be resisted. It's like (I've never seen this, to be clear) pescatarians rebranding as "seafood vegans". What is supposed to be gained there, or by trying to bolt on various source-available licenses to the definition of open source?
So this guy picks an important topic, and right up front, he's telling me he knows that it's going to piss me off, but he's going to call not-open-source software open source anyway, and if I object, I don't care about developers getting paid.
Y'know what? You succeeded. Fuck you, tab closed.
sanderjd|2 years ago
I really dislike this kind of "geez, read the room!" thinking. Not everybody needs to have the same opinion about everything. Not everybody should. The opinion of "the room" or in your terminology, the "intended audience", is ever-evolving and the way that happens is via people talking and writing about their own opinions that aren't identical to the prevailing views of the time.
But it's fine that you disagree with the author about this and are unswayed by the author's arguments. Others will agree with the author and be unswayed by your counter-arguments, and that's fine too. Still others will change their views after reading the article or responses to it, and that's also fine. Maybe the prevailing view will shift as a result of all this discussion, maybe it won't. This is how discourse works!
acdha|2 years ago
For example:
> But it's important to have a term for software which is unencumbered by use restrictions, and we do: open source.
This phrasing means the GPL and MIT licenses are not open source. I doubt that’s what you meant, but simply raising the topic means that we’ll be debating exactly which use restrictions can dance on the head of a pin rather than the real substance of this essay: we all use open source software, we should be talking about how to make it pay a decent living!
barnabee|2 years ago
The goal isn’t for every dev or project to make money or be sustainable in open source, just as it isn’t for every business idea to succeed.
I donate to numerous open source projects and make a point of donating more than I believe they’d charge me to buy/subscribe if the software wasn’t open source. I encourage others to do so too, I sincerely hope and believe we can see that happen. I’d love to see more truly open source software become sustainable, of course.
But I don’t kid myself that it all will be. And I don’t care to relax the definition to include open core, VC exploitative, bait and switch, or whatever (have we learnt nothing in the last two decades?!). If the project dies it dies, if it stays a hobby project that’s ok too.
Towaway69|2 years ago
The number that was thrown around was $177M.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39340146
mkoubaa|2 years ago
ChadNauseam|2 years ago
1. Open source libraries tend to be complement goods. You're more willing to pay for a good physics engine if you already have a good rendering engine and vice versa. But a sad truth of complement goods is that they are a centralizing force - it's actually better for everyone if the physics engine maker and rendering engine maker join forces and offer a bundle discount. But the most common strategy seems to be for them to just merge into one company, and this is why you see giant conglomerate products like Unreal and Unity instead of buying each component from a different vendor.
2. Since open source software is a public good (non-rivalrous, non-excludable), the "free market" cannot really incentivize its production nearly as much as would be optimal. Let's say there are 1000 people who would each pay $10 for a feature to be added, and the maintainer would happily add it for $5000. If 90% of those people each paid $6 they would get what they want and the maintainer would be happy too, but each individual has an incentive to be part of that 10% that gets to keep their $6 and still gets the feature, so what happens is that almost no one ends up paying.
These problems can't be solved without slightly modifying open source, but they can be solved by maintaining the spirit of open source I think. What you need is to have some kind of foundation that takes money and gives it to "quasi-open-source" projects, and then only allows businesses to use those projects if they contribute a certain percentage of their revenue to the foundation. Of course, now the foundation needs to decide which open source projects to give the money too. It's an extremely tricky problem, but there's been a lot of interesting research by Glen Weyl on that exact subject and I'm confident it could be solved in a satisfactory way.
I think this proposal would create a virtuous cycle once it got off the ground. The more projects licensed "quasi-open-source", the larger the incentive to pay the foundation to use them. The more the foundation is paid, the more money these "quasi-open-source" projects get, and so more people will license their projects "quasi-open-source", increasing the incentive again, etc.
Of course, it would only be "quasi-open-source", and not truly open-source. But there's no reason the license couldn't be extremely in line with the spirit of open source. For example, it could say "if you're an individual or small company, you can use our code for any purpose for free. If you're a big company, you can use it in a way that complies with the AGPL or you can pay us, your choice".
I think employees would also encourage their employers to become paying members of such a foundation, if it lead to those employees being able to determine where some of the money goes. Everyone at my current company is a Rust developer and so we naturally like Rust, but Rust jobs aren't always easy to find. As employees, it could be in our best interest to subsidize the development of Rust open source projects, if that increased Rust's attractiveness to other companies.
If you're interested in this idea, my email is in my bio :D
mrob|2 years ago
This has actually worked in practice: Blender was originally proprietary software, but the copyright holder agreed to release it under the GPL after collecting 100K EUR in donations. After 7 weeks they collected enough donations and Blender was released as FOSS as promised.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system
wmf|2 years ago
Towaway69|2 years ago
Well said and very true.
mirekrusin|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
mise_en_place|2 years ago
coretx|2 years ago
philipwhiuk|2 years ago
If I hate any specific business model that is used by a company that does some some open source suddenly I don't think people deserve to be paid for their work?
Yeah no, that's garbage. There's plenty of garbage business models and they aren't suddenly okay because one company uses it and 1% of their money funds some small bit of OSS work that underpins their business model.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
musicale|2 years ago
debo_|2 years ago
This article came across as much less ranty than I expected based on his disclaimer. I think he pretty much perfectly articulated the noise around funded open source.
acdha|2 years ago
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/fully-automated-luxu...
jpetso|2 years ago
Open source guarantees to me, the user, that competition among vendors will be possible and fair in the future. This is exactly the point that many "fake OSS" licenses try to take away. Okay, maybe it's possible to fork for personal on-prem use, but god forbid someone creates a competing hosted solution that gives any customer more choice. Furthermore, these pieces of software are fucked the day that the company folds, or gets acquired by a malevolent buyer.
Open source guarantees a baseline level of respect towards me, the end user. By letting anyone fork a project that's gone too far in the wrong direction, I know that my software will continue working in the short run and of it's important enough, a competing alternative will emerge that continues without one-sided money or data grabs.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having someone from Microsoft or Google work on open source software, or any VC-funded company that will without fail turn against their users sooner or later. However, if a controlling majority of developers is employed this way, it provides an opportunity for what elsewhere is known as regulatory capture. If Microsoft's goal is to make people dependent on proprietary GitLab and VS Code Marketplace offerings, and Google's goal is to provide the greatest possible amount of ads and tracking to the largest possible user base, it does not matter if the software is open source or not. The end result is the same, I'm left without viable alternatives and big business gets to do with us whatever the hell they please.
Especially when this software becomes ubiquitous and entrenched, paying developers to work on company-controlled OSS instead of community-driven, user-respecting OSS is a net negative for everyone in the long run.
I'm only interested in OSS in so far as it protects my interests as an end user, and/or our common interests as a society, now and in the future. The collaborative aspect is nice, but that's not the reason that we should ask for better compensation for maintainers.
The "Open Source" label as such is indeed meaningless per se, and it doesn't always protect me either, as seen with BSD+MIT software allowing cryptographically-enabled control of devices that I nominally own, or GPL being useless when there is no actual distribution of software involved. That said, I have yet to see a case of non-OSI "open source" that doesn't try to tilt the playing field in biased, controlling and long-term unsustainable or user-hostile ways.
If you can't build a business on a level playing field, perhaps it's in everyone's interest that your business and software dies, or retreats into lower-intensity hobbyist maintainership, instead of leading everyone into a hard dependency on your oh so well-intended monetization of originally useful software. Then at least someone else can take a shot at doing it better.
jart|2 years ago
hansonpeter|2 years ago
[deleted]
newaccount7g|2 years ago
[deleted]
jebickett|2 years ago
[deleted]
delichon|2 years ago
I'd pay for an open source project that could filter & sort news by surprisingness-for-that-news-source. This opinion would rank high for jacobin.com. The story about Zuckerberg's preference for the Quest 3 over the AVP would disappear.
prisenco|2 years ago
But even so, paying people for their labor is entirely uncontroversial amongst socialists. Some might even argue it's the fundamental underpinning of their critique of capitalism.
mkeeter|2 years ago
https://jacobin.com is a socialist magazine
This blog post is from the former!
axus|2 years ago
throwitaway222|2 years ago
netbioserror|2 years ago
woodruffw|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF|2 years ago
> Warning: rant ahead. I’m writing from a place of frustration and not particularly interested in trying to moderate my tone. If you don’t want to hear me yell about open source for a while, please skip this one.