How to Save Open Source Software from Neglect and Exploitation
The digital tapestry of our modern society is interwoven with open source software (OSS), threads that form the underpinning of vast networks, systems, and innovations. Jan Kammerath, with the eye of a seasoned software engineer and the heart of an entrepreneur, delves into the fabric of OSS, exposing the frayed edges that threaten its integrity.
His assertion that the challenges plaguing open source are not the monoliths of Big Tech but rather the systemic neglect of its very foundation — its creators — is both poignant and grounded. Kammerath underscores a crucial reality: that the very essence of OSS, its beating heart, is the community of developers who often labor in the shadows, unheralded and uncompensated. These individuals are the unsung heroes who, through their contributions, propel innovation and technological advancement, yet they grapple with burnout, stress, and thanklessness. According to a survey by GitHub, 63% of open source developers feel overwhelmed by the amount of work they have to do, and 54% have experienced negative interactions such as rudeness, name-calling, or harassment. Moreover, only 5% of open source developers receive any financial compensation for their work, while the rest rely on donations, sponsorships, or their own savings. This creates a huge gap between the value that open source software generates for the global economy and the support that its developers receive.
Statistics paint a stark picture: with the majority of OSS contributors toiling without pay and facing a deluge of demands, the sustainability of this ecosystem hangs in the balance. Kammerath’s piece echoes the findings of numerous reports, such as GitHub’s Octoverse and Open UK’s State of Open, spotlighting the disconcerting disconnection between the astronomical value OSS brings to the global GDP and the paltry support it receives. According to Statista, only 17% of OSS developers received any compensation for their work in 2020. The irony is bitter and undeniable: a world so dependent on open source software seems oblivious to the very hands that build and maintain it.
In the vortex of blame often directed at large corporations for their perceived parasitic relationship with OSS, Kammerath presents a narrative that is less about casting villains and more about acknowledging complex realities. It’s enlightening to see the acknowledgement that companies like Google and Microsoft are not the antagonists they’re often portrayed to be but are instead key contributors and allies to the OSS initiative. Yet, their support is ensnared by their own set of challenges and market forces that curtail their ability to be the sole benefactors of open source. For instance, Google has faced criticism for its handling of the Android operating system, which is based on open source code but has been accused of being increasingly closed and restrictive. Microsoft, on the other hand, has embraced open source in recent years, acquiring GitHub, the largest online code repository, and launching its own open source projects, such as Visual Studio Code and .NET Core. However, some skeptics question Microsoft’s motives and fear that it might exploit or undermine the open source community.
Kammerath’s true grievance lies with the absence of a robust, equitable ecosystem that not only nurtures but also rewards open source development. The current landscape, reliant on sporadic donations and sponsorships, is neither reliable nor conducive to long-term sustainability. OSS developers, tasked with rivalling proprietary software, find themselves in an arena where the rule of the game favors the financially backed and the well-marketed. However, there are some platforms and initiatives that aim to provide alternative funding models for open source projects, such as Liberapay, Bountysource, Open Collective, Stakes.social, Tidelift, and Issuehunt. These platforms enable developers to receive recurrent or one-time donations, bounties, subscriptions, or royalties from their users, sponsors, or partners. Some of them also offer governance and legal support for open source communities.
The solutions Kammerath proposes, though ambitious, are not beyond reach. Envisioning a global foundation for OSS that provides not just financial backing but also governance and legal sanctuary is a clarion call for systemic reform. Such a foundation could be modeled after existing organizations like the Open Source Initiative or the Open Source Security Foundation, which aim to promote and protect the open source ecosystem. Standardized metrics to gauge the value and impact of OSS could pave the way for a more transparent and merit-based reward system. For example, the Open Source Impact Index is a ranking of the most influential open source projects based on various criteria such as popularity, activity, and dependencies. Moreover, Kammerath’s plea for a greater public and policy-making awareness speaks to a need for a cultural shift — a renaissance of appreciation and support for the open source movement.
