Rethinking Open Source: A Call for Evolution in Software Models
Written on
Chapter 1: The State of Open Source Today
In this discussion, some might conclude that I harbor disdain for open source. To those individuals, I suggest it's their choice to misinterpret my intentions. Most readers, however, may take a moment to reflect before sharing their thoughts in the comments. Others might simply forget about this conversation altogether. Regardless of your stance, I assert that the future is inevitable, and the landscape of open source will undergo significant transformation.
The Modern Dilemma: Stuck in the Past
My journey with technology began in the 90s, coinciding with the advent of Linux in 1991, two decades after the open source concept emerged in the early 70s. Back then, my father was indifferent to computers, focusing instead on his iPad. In contrast, I find open source software integral to my daily life, particularly as I transitioned into software engineering. If I ever had to abandon macOS, Ubuntu would be my immediate choice.
While I appreciate open source, I firmly believe it cannot continue under the same guidelines established in the 90s. We are in a new era…
The Current Landscape
Consider how we now run JavaScript on servers, create applications with WebAssembly, and use AI to generate images in the cloud. Our software production rates are unprecedented, with React alone being downloaded nearly 16 million times weekly. Moment.js follows with over 18 million downloads, yet both frameworks have a surprisingly low number of contributors relative to their usage. If this doesn't raise some eyebrows, I don't know what will.
We're benefitting from free resources to construct billion-dollar enterprises.
Recent movements in the industry reflect a growing awareness among software owners. Tools like Docker Desktop and Akka are shifting towards paid models, indicating that the era of free software may be waning. The idea that digital resources are inherently free is being challenged.
Imagine constructing a grand mansion while only paying for labor, with all materials, tools, and machinery provided at no cost. It sounds absurd, yet that’s the reality we face in the software development world. A glance at any web app’s package.json or Flutter project’s pubspec.yaml reveals an extensive list of dependencies, most of which are free. If every contributor to open source demanded compensation for their efforts, the global economy could face unprecedented turmoil.
Yet we routinely assume we can develop applications—especially on the web—by relying on the selflessness of countless engineers, which feels fundamentally unjust.
The Shift in Open Source
Akka's recent pivot to a paid licensing model has stirred significant industry reactions. Many are upset, contemplating abandoning the tool rather than appreciating the years of free access to a resource that has proven invaluable. This bold decision by Lightbend signals the start of a necessary shift in which free software for commercial use may become obsolete.
Open Source Needs to Adapt
I recognize that "must" is a strong assertion, but I genuinely believe that open source cannot thrive in its current state. While Akka's decision may come as a surprise to some, it’s a logical progression. The traditional model, where a few individuals create something remarkable while millions profit without contributing, is unsustainable.
As a creator, seeing my package downloaded a million times offers no financial security for my future. We need a restructured open source framework that stipulates responsibilities based on software consumption. A potential outline could be:
- Individuals and organizations with no profit: free use.
- Individuals and organizations with less than $20K profit: free use.
- Individuals and organizations with profits between $20K and $100K: direct contribution or annual sponsorship fee.
- Individuals and organizations with over $100K profit: annual sponsorship fee.
- Individuals and organizations with over $1M profit: higher tier annual sponsorship fee.
These funds could be pooled to fairly compensate contributors for their efforts. We must stop conflating open source with free services. If a developer invests time improving software, they should receive some form of remuneration.
A New Paradigm for Open Source
This model could also address the multitude of bugs prevalent in open-source projects. While many express frustration over these issues, few are willing to invest time or resources to resolve them, indicating a failing system. As software grows in complexity and popularity, it becomes increasingly challenging for creators to maintain their projects.
If we accept that musicians deserve payment for online streams, why shouldn’t software developers receive similar recognition? Creators must find innovative ways to fund their initiatives, as exemplified by FontAwesome's efforts to keep portions of their software accessible for free.
A comprehensive support model for open source would ensure predictability for both developers and users, creating a balanced ecosystem.
I genuinely see no viable alternative. Do you? 💬
In this insightful video, Yup'ik storyteller John Active shares a chilling tale that explores cultural storytelling traditions.