The future of open source requires more to give, less to take

It's time to have an honest, direct, and frequent discussion about what it means to use open source software and how you can give back to the community.

译自 The Future of Open Source Needs More Give and Less Take，作者 Kim McMahon。

I have worked in the open source space for many years in a variety of roles, including leading open source activities, advocacy efforts, community creation and building, and collaboration. I've worked for large organizations, startups, and foundations. I've seen the history, development, and ups and downs of open source. I love this technology deeply and I believe it can make a difference.

I see a change in the perspective of open source, especially from organizations that use open source technologies. It becomes more competitive, takes without giving, and is more selfish.

This happened recently, and after the pandemic, we entered the current recession. I have some theories as to why this is happening now, and in short, it has to do with correcting the general contraction caused by past overspending, the job market shifting from an employee market to a hiring market, and organizations trying to survive in the current economic environment.

When we become selfish and only take and don't give, we ignore the key principle of open source. To recap: open source is about:

• collaboration
• contribute
• transparency
• Open communication
• Community-oriented development

When we don't follow accepted open source principles (see, for example, the Open Source Initiative (OSI)'s definition of open source), those who follow the principles and do the right thing are forced to change their way of doing things in order to survive. No one should expect any organization to be a top contributor to an open source project, funding engineering, documentation, advocacy, and community activities, and then let the for-profit organization not contribute, capitalize on the efforts of others, and profit from it.

It's not fair and, frankly, not friendly.

Since my time at RISC-V (Open Source ISA), I've been trying to convince organizations to contribute, and this effort has continued during my tenure at the open source project Kyverno and the for-profit company Nirmata, and now at the FreeBSD Foundation.

We didn't run into this problem when I was working at the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (in the Dan Kohn era), and I'm not sure why, other than organizations and individuals who want to be a part of the shiniest thing in the room and see the potential for them to grow.

If you've used open source technology, integrated it into your product, and relied on it for 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 don't organizations give back?

I've always been a dislike of negative or fear-based marketing, but now is the time to change my perspective. It's time for us to expose bad behavior in the open source space. We must remind the organization that if you don't contribute to the project in some way, the project may disappear and you will have to make a mass replacement. Now is the time to recognize (loudly) those organizations that contribute, even if they could do better in terms of activity or motivation. It's time to stop the "us vs. them" distinction, open source vs. proprietary, sponsors and vendors vs. projects, marketing vs. everyone else.

Sponsors & Vendors VS Open Source Projects

I'd like to briefly talk about the relationship between sponsors and vendors and open source projects. I touched on this in my Fall 2023 conference presentation (see video from Cloud Native Rejekts). I talked about the elephant in the room in a part of my speech. Many of us work for a for-profit company. They give back to open source, but they're a business.

If a business doesn't generate revenue from the technology it contributes, if it doesn't have the funds to develop new technologies or provide resources to raise awareness, help users get started, and support them throughout their journey, then open source efforts disappear.

It's normal for businesses to profit from their open source efforts. We need to stop blaming organizations that have found an open source business model (open core, services and support, education, etc.) and are making money by providing enhancements and services.

Marketing VS Everyone

Call it propaganda. Call it communication. But don't call it marketing.

I don't know when the word "marketing" became so bad in the developer world, but it is. This could be because some ill-intentioned players get to know you, sell you, and don't tell the whole truth (if you omit a part of the story, are you lying?). ）。 I left after a short stint at a company because it was clear that the company wanted me to go to open source and developer-related events, collect names and email addresses, and pass on contact information to inside sales. No thanks – I'm not going to ruin my reputation!

However, there are some "good marketers" who are attending events, attending conferences, sharing content. We:

• Respect your work, your processes, and your privacy.
• We strive to understand what you need to evaluate a technology.
• We'll never sell you anything.

You want us great marketers to be around. We focus on helping people understand technology, use it, and tell the story of their experiences with it. We focus on the end-to-end experience for our users. We put the control in the hands of our users, and provide them with content, communities, and tools to make their own decisions.

I've created the Open Source Community Marketing and Communications Team Code of Conduct, and I hope the open source community will work together to solidify it. My goal is to build trust with the developer community that we're going to use the information for good, to help them, not to help myself.

What do we do now?

It's time to have a candid, direct, and frequent discussion about what it means to use open source and how to give back. It's time to name and criticize irresponsible consumers (those who don't contribute), give them notoriety, and let them know what they're doing. Now it's time to talk about the negative effects of not contributing, and what happens if users don't support open source projects. Unfortunately, it's time to use fear marketing.

I'm an optimist, and I can encourage organizations to do the right thing. That's the approach I take on the open source projects I work with – I educate, present choices, and help organizations make decisions that are best for them.

But I've gotten to the point where I'm not afraid to take negative measures – if needed. The future of open source depends on this.