Preserving the Open-Source Spirit of Open Source Software
Big commercial software companies are nowadays greatly benefiting from open source software. A lot of open source software creators feel that such companies should fairly compensate the creators of the software they use.
However, these companies might be reluctant to compensate open source developers because of the risks that pen source software carries. These companies often have to have teams of code auditors who have to go through the software to ensure it is safe and reliable.
Reliability and security are the two main concerns companies and other types of users have about open source software. When companies compensate any software developer, they often go the proprietary route.
These big companies often give back to the open-source community by having open-source projects of their own or contributing to third-party projects.
That’s great! However, these companies have the muscle to build all the software they would need. It’s safe to say that contributing to open-source project might not take them as much energy as it takes small teams or individuals.
Keeping the Open Source Spirit Alive
If anyone is going to pick code from the open source community and make some edits to it to create a product, then that product should end up in the open source community for the benefit of all. That does not always happen though. Software companies are picking code from the open source community and using it to create commercial products for which they have proprietary licenses.
That practice will gradually kill the open-source spirit of the open source development community.
So, how can we build users confidence in open source software? How do we get to a point where users of open source software can compensate the creators but the software remains open source?
Why do companies find it difficult to pay for open source software or code?
As mentioned earlier, most users, especially big companies will have reliability and security concerns about open source software. Maybe, they’d be willing to compensate the creators if there was a way to guarantee them that open-source software is safe and secure.
That means we need a different approach. Instead of these companies paying for the software and getting proprietary licenses for it, they should pay for guarantees that the software is reliable and safe, while the software remains open source.
To illustrate what I am talking about, let’s forget about everything we know about the internet for a moment. Let’s explore how physical buildings are built for one moment.
The Occupancy Permit
Architects and structural engineers come up with building tons of building designs and make them available of all and sundry. How do they get paid for their work if anyone can use their designs?
The get paid for appending their signature to the occupancy permit. You cannot inhabit a building without the occupancy permit. It is your guarantee that the building you are inhabiting will not come tumbling down on you.
If the architects and structural engineers compromise their work by signing occupancy permits for buildings that are not safe and reliable, they are putting their professional reputation on the line. They will be held professionally and criminally liable if that building ever collapses, even in part.
The same model could be adopted within the open source community. That means there needs to be some form of authority and professional licensing within the open source community.
Decentralized Authority
Authority! Most people within the open source community will think of central governance when they hear the word authority.
The open source world thrives on decentralized governance. However, decentralized governance does not work. In fact, it the major reason why it’s becoming difficult to preserve the open source spirit.
Read my post on what decentralized governance does not work here.
If you’ve read the post, you know the alternative is not centralized governance either. The alternative is decentralized authority. Governance and authority are not the same thing.
Architects and structural engineers are under an authority that ensures they are held professionally and criminally liable if they misuse their signatures.
The decentralized authority will issue professional licenses to open source developers. The developers will have digital signatures that are tied to their professional licenses. If they attach their signature, and hence professional license to any open source software, they are giving a guarantee that that software is safe and reliable.
As mentioned earlier, we need solutions to two challenges to be able to preserve the open source spirit of open source software. One, we need to get users and businesses to have confidence and trust in open source software. And two, we need to get open source creators fairly compensated.
Professional licenses and digital identities that make open source developers accountable will guarantee the security and reliability of open source software. That means business and companies that use open source software do not have to worry about security and reliability. They don’t have to have teams of software auditors. That way, they’d be open to paying for the value they get from the software.
However, the businesses and users would be paying for the guarantee that the software is reliable and secure. They are paying for the professional liability that the open source developers will take when they append their digital signature on the open source software.
They don’t pay for the software itself and the software, therefore, gets to remain open source. Anyone else can use the software. Professionally licensed developers will allow small businesses and individuals who do not have the muscle to audit code and software to use open source software without worry.
Once you understand that there is no such thing as decentralized governance, you’ll understand why the open source community needs some authority to solve some of the challenges that they have. The main joy of open source software development is that it is available for all. If we secure and reliable software for all, no one will feel the need to buy a particular software to reserve it for themselves. If the users are commercially benefiting from open source software the creators ought to benefit as well.
Check out https://fairtrade.osmio.org/to learn more about how open source developers could be fairly compensated.