~lioploum/en

On Open Source and the Sustainability of the Commons

Details
Message ID
<171983445946.7.17331556685418272138.368672144@ploum.eu>
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
ON OPEN SOURCE AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE COMMONS
by Ploum on 2024-07-01

https://ploum.net/2024-07-01-opensource_sustainability.html

TL;DR: put your open source code under the AGPL license.

Much have been said about the need to pay Open Source developers for 
their work and the fact that huge corporations use open source software 
without contributing back.

Most articles I’ve been reading on the subject completely miss the mark. 
Plenty of commentators try to reinvent some kind of "free software but 
with forced contributions" or "free software but non-commercial". Those 
are naive and wrong. If you impose limitations, it’s, by definition, not 
free software anymore.

The problem is not about Open Source or Free Software. The problem is 
everything else.

Open Source utopia, as envisioned until the first decade of this 
millennium, was to create a huge, powerful stack of open-source software 
that would serve as the foundations of any human endeavour. Including 
building businesses or, for some, proprietary products. Free Software 
would be part of the commons, a huge natural pool of resources. Every 
business would be small in comparison. Just like we allowed private 
companies to sell water (a common good) thinking the companies would be 
small compared to the nearly infinite supply of water.

We were naive.

What we got is more or less the opposite: huge monopolistic corporations 
and lots of small fragmented free software pieces that connect them. 
Bottled soda factories pumping so much water that whole populations 
start to suffer from the lack of fresh water and, as a consequence, 
being forced to buy bottled water.

Technically, Open Source won. Politically, it lost. The reason is 
simple: it was easier to build consensus around technical solutions, 
washing away political implications that were seen as out of scope or 
too hard to agree.

Every megacorporation is now built on top of free software. But they 
managed to make it effectively proprietary by hiding their code behind 
web interfaces. When publicly distributed, the open-source code is 
hidden behind layers of indirection bypassing any packaging/integration 
effort, relying instead on virtualisation and downloading dependencies 
on the fly. Thanks to those strategies, corporations could benefit from 
open source code without any consequence. The open source code is, 
anyway, mostly hosted and developed on proprietary platforms.

Even hardcore free software geeks now use some dependencies/plugins 
mechanisms that are hardcoded to only look at Github. Through nested 
dependencies, millions of people are running code directly downloaded 
from Github without even realising it.

We need to talk about your Github addiction (ploum.net)
https://ploum.net/2023-02-22-leaving-github.html

Due to the original open-source utopia paradigm, every time a developer 
push free code on Github, she feels like she’s contributing to the 
commons. But, effectively, she’s pushing code into production in 
hundreds of exploitive corporate projects. When a problem occurs, per 
corporate tradition, pressure and blame fall on the maintainer. Even if 
that maintainer is not on the payroll.

Paying the Maintainer Makes the Problem Worse
=============================================

That will be an extremely unpopular opinion but I’m convinced that 
paying the contributor/maintainer a dime is not the solution. It worsen 
the situation. It acknowledges the responsibility of the aforementioned 
maintainer and legitimises the exploitation.

We need to remember that most (if not all) free software is provided, 
"without liability". That rule should be enforced. We should not care 
about corporations. If there was no support contract prior hand, let 
them burn. Trying to force corporations to pay the maintainer is like 
trying to force landlords to pay firefighters only if their house is 
burning. Or agreeing that a factory should give a small tip to 
volunteers cleaning the river it is polluting.

Paid and unpaid open source developers are pressed into providing a 
support they never promised in the first time. So they ask companies for 
mandatory contributions, something they explicitly refused when they 
licensed their code.

So, what can we do?

In the short term, it’s very simple. If you care about the commons, you 
should put your work under a strong copyleft license like the AGPL. That 
way, we will get back to building that commons we lost because of web 
services. If someone ever complains that a web service broke because of 
your AGPL code, reply that the whole web service should be under the 
AGPL too.

We were tricked into thinking that BSD or MIT licences were "freer" like 
we were tricked into believing that building a polluting factory next to 
our local river would be "good for the economy". It is a scam. A lot of 
unpaid or badly paid developers would probably benefit from switching to 
a copyleft license but they use BSD/MIT because they see themselves are 
"temporary embarrassed software millionaires".

We should also actively fight against automatic installation of 
recursive dependencies. No, it is not normal and no sanely engineered 
system should do this. We should not trust the Microsoft-owned Github to 
distribute software. A git repository is a development tool, not a 
distribution mechanism for end users. Something the Great Ancients 
understood fully when they started projects like BSD, Debian or Red Hat 
which are called… "distributions". Yes, the "D" in BSD stand for 
"distribution". It is not by accident that those distributions care a 
lot about the license of the software they distribute.

Get Rid of Monopolies
=====================

In the long term, the root causes of most of our problems are the 
monopolistic corporations. Without them, we would not have this 
discussion. There’s a generational divide here. Brilliant coders now on 
the market or in the free software space have never known a world 
without Google, Facebook and Github. Their definition of software is 
"something running in the browser". Even email is, for them, a synonym 
for the proprietary messaging system called "Gmail" or "Outlook". They 
contribute to FLOSS on Github while chatting on Slack or Discord, 
sharing specifications on Google Drive and advertising their project on 
Twitter/X. They also often have an iPhone and a Mac because "shiny". 
They cannot imagine an alternative world where monopolies would not be 
everywhere. They feel that having nice Github and Linkedin profiles 
where they work for free is the only hope they have to escape 
unemployment. Who can blame them? They cannot imagine a world without 
monopolies. They don’t search, they Google, they don’t shop online, they 
go on Amazon, they don’t read a book but a Kindle, they don’t take a 
coffee but a Starbucks. For them, politics is only a source of 
conflicts, a naughty word.

As they start to understand that they are exploited by those omnipotent 
deities, they see only one way to make it acceptable: ask, through one 
of those deities (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn), to be paid. They 
understand that they are two classes of coders in the world: those who 
are exploited without being paid and those who are paid to be exploited. 
A bit or even more in some cases. While a few hands keep all the power.

What elderly, like myself, should teach them, is that there are many 
alternatives. We can live without Google, Facebook Microsoft, Apple, 
Amazon. We can write code which is not on Github, which doesn’t run on 
an Amazon server and which is not displayed in a Google browser. We 
should also insist that every piece of technology is, by essence, 
political. That you cannot understand technology without understanding 
the people. And you cannot understand people without understanding 
politics. Every choice you made has an impact on the world.

At the turn of the century, the free software community was focused on 
fighting Microsoft monopoly. We even joined force with Google and Apple 
to fight Microsoft. We completely failed. We helped build a world where 
mostly everything is "Microsofted", "Googled" and "Iphonized". All of 
this made possible thanks to open source and millions of hours worked 
for free by people who contributed to what we thought was "the commons".

The lesson we learned is harsh: we can never trust corporations with 
anything. They destroyed our oceans, our atmosphere and our politics. 
There’s no reason to trust them with our software, our privacy and our 
daily lives.

In the long term, our only hope is to build stronger commons. Every day, 
we must fight to protect and improve the commons while letting 
corporations have as little power as we can over it and over our lives.

If you are a creator or a coder, you can do it today by adopting 
copyleft licenses and enforcing them as much as you can.

Put your open source code under the AGPL license!

Photo by Nick Karvounis
https://unsplash.com/fr/photos/man-cleaning-shoe-of-another-man-near-white-painted-wall-outdoors-sjSYDZawOD4



--- 
To unsubscribe, send an email to ~lioploum/en+unsubscribe@lists.sr.ht
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)