Open Source is a strategy, not a lifestyle

•

5 min read

Technology

I see so many engineers dedicating their lives towards open source. They use their spare time to contribute to projects and push the boundaries of technology. For everyone doing this, I can say heartfelt thank you!

Due to the many people and organisations contributing to open-source, we can observe several behaviours in this ecosystem. Some of them are:

  • Maintainers are burned out because of the project's change requests and demands.
  • Maintainers don't get paid for their open-source work. They struggle to make a living from their efforts.
  • Companies change their license from being open to permissive.
  • Companies taking parts of their ecosystem open source as a sales channel for their paid offering.

Let me bring you on a short journey through some lowlights of the open-source ecosystem:

Only a tiny fraction of people can live from open-source #

People making a living from open-source only represent a tiny fraction of the entire open-source ecosystem[1]. Others have a hard time making enough to survive the day, while their software is used by most major companies[2]. Since there are plenty of developers working on open-source in their free time, many memes highlight their situation.

Maintainers struggle to get reimbursements for their efforts #

You might remember the xz backdoor issue in 2024. The timeline shows the xz utility is a widely used package maintained by a single person without reimbursement. It nearly caused a vast supply chain attack.

Another example is the core-js situation. It is a polyfill library for JavaScript applications[3]. However, the maintainer has problems getting enough reimbursement for his efforts. This caused a lengthy article about his situation (with a ton of details I won't go into here).

Companies claim to be open but restrict the ecosystem #

We saw the VSCode Editor climb to the top, being the most used and loved one[4]. It makes a big statement about being open-source. The Monaco Editor and the core VSCodium are publicly available. While focusing on product adoption via open-source communities, Microsoft built extensions and the marketplace with a proprietary license. Today, VSCode is a product with deep integrations for Microsoft commercial products[5].

Companies changing their licenses #

Some companies start as open-source and monetise it after they gain traction. Sadly, this caused various changes in licensing in the past:

Engineers doing open-source as a hobby #

On the developer side, it feels more religious: “My code is always open-source. I won't do these things. I believe in open-source.” On one hand, I like and can relate to that statement. On the other hand, we must recognise what a luxury it is to be able to say that. Through well-paid employment, we have a couple of hours each week to contribute. We can engage in these donation exercises. Not everyone is blessed with that. Most people have to make money to survive the day. For that reason, it's completely acceptable to ask for a payment in general.

Building something in your spare time, with the motivation to solve a need, is a great thing. If your solution gains traction and adoption, maintainers will continue to do what they have always loved: extend and maintain the project. But this has its limits. At a certain point, it's just too much for one person.

When a project gains traction, maintainers might not realise that the operating mode has changed. A single-person project turned into a venture that requires more effort. Other tasks, such as supporting others and establishing maintenance resources to handle the increased efforts, emerge. This is the point at which a maintainer should reassess the situation. For example: examine the project from a management or even business perspective. Or clearly express your situation without mimicking company communications spreading false beliefs.

A positive example I appreciate for their clarity is NetNewsWire. A publicly available RSS reader for the Apple ecosystem. There are tons of RSS readers, many even a paid offering. In this market, NetNewsWire clearly states they are not the free alternative. They want to make a great, free RSS reader but are picky and careful about adding features. They're not mimicking the features of other commercial apps. They’re glad those other apps exist because, among other things, those features have already been done, and they don’t have to do them.

Earning from open-source is hard #

Companies often turn to open-source to get away from license cost[6]. Their goal is to save money. Their willingness to pay for open-source is already unlikely. This raises the question, how do you make money from software? How do you distribute software?

Marijn Haverbeke already faced these questions with his libraries. He has an excellent blog post highlighting options from closed source up to open source. Ultimately, he chose to go for open-source. He added a social responsibility. It means, when you use the software in any commercial, he expects that you set up a donation plan. It helps others to adopt the software and contribute to it quickly. He takes the risk of others taking social responsibility seriously.

As these sponsorships go, they have extremely low conversion rates. Evan You explains in an interview: Vue.js has 1.7 million users worldwide, and he (as the creator) has around 400 sponsors. These are often small companies. The boss is a developer who can afford to make a considerable monthly contribution.

Sponsorships are also a special kind of reimbursement. They primarily rely on a relationship based on trust. In general, there are no strings attached. You support a person because you think that this person does good work. However, this person alone decides what to do with the time or donation he or she receives.

This shows that it is hard to earn significant money with open-source approaches. So, how and why do companies move within this space?

Companies do it because "it's good for business." #

The Wardley Map highlights, that developing in the open is a strategic gameplay. There are several moves you can do:

  • Openly build the product's core to convince customers there is no "lock-in."[7]
  • Drive adoption towards a commodity and aim to be the market standard. Done right, all competitors have to integrate your API.
  • Use it as a financial weapon to undercut proprietary on-premise software.
  • Offer a free tier (like self-hosting) to "lock customers in". When they need a sophisticated solution, paying for the service is the easiest and cheapest option.

Regardless of which strategy you use, the bottom line is that "it's good for business". For example, let's say you operate a massive tech platform. You provide open-source software tooling. Others use it and benefit from it. Even when they never use your product, it improves the overall market. It makes the internet a better place for business. This attracts new market participants that now may use your products.

Companies draft statements like "we love open-source" not because they love open-source but because they believe that loving open-source is good for business.

Conclusion #

From all these things we explored in the ecosystem,

  • make sure you have the finance model or cross-financing figured out,
  • realise for yourself why you want to move into the open-source space,
  • clarify expectations,
  • learn to say no.

As much as I love open-source and as much as it helped me in my career, I have to accept that it isn’t all that shiny and glorious as it often seems to be. So, be considerable when moving within the space.

  1. A study shown that many maintainers are not paid for their work ↩︎

  2. For example, the core-js maintainer and the xz maintainer. ↩︎

  3. Companies build apps with the latest JavaScript features for modern browsers. They integrate core-js to support older browsers. ↩︎

  4. I appreciate and use VSCode, yet think that the JetBrains IDEs work better with huge codebases. ↩︎

  5. Visual Studio Code is designed to fracture ↩︎

  6. State of Open Source Report 2024 Page 9 ↩︎

  7. Claims of "not being locked-in" are made, which is far from reality, but people believe them. ↩︎

Any feedback? Drop me a line.

I value your feedback, so please keep it coming. Feel free to send directly to this email ([email protected]) with any questions, comments, or feedback.