You don’t have to be a psychic to grok that the winds of change are blowing hard in the open source world. For the last few months, I’ve seen hints and heard whispers about a new direction for what I believe is the most passionate and enthusiastic community in tech. I think we are about to sail off into unchartered territory—and it will be interesting to see what the repercussions are.
Of course, this will all play out against the backdrop of continued layoffs and belt-tightening in the broader tech sector. Before I detail what I think are the telltale signals of change, let me state that I am and have always been a big supporter of open source software. I firmly believe we live in a golden age for open source software, which I call the “Foundation era of open source.” At a time when 90% plus of organizations use open source software, many of the leading open source projects are under the domain of not-for-profit foundations (NFPs) such as the Linux Foundation, the Apache Foundation, etc. This allows multiple commercial companies who might otherwise compete with each other to work in coop-etition. This has, in many ways, enabled this golden age of open source. Prior to the Foundation era of open source, there were two prior dominant models. Initially, there was what I call the “Cathedral and Bazaar era,” named after the great book by Eric Raymond. This was a time of idealistic notions of “pure” open source, unsullied by commercial aspirations. To me, Dr. Richard Stallman embodied that time; if you were to make an analogy to history, it was akin to the 1960s era in the U.S.
From that era, let’s zoom to sometime in the early 2000s when we moved to what I call the “Big Brother era” of open source. In this era, open source projects were owned and managed by one vendor, for all intents and purposes. The project could have a vibrant community, but ultimately, it was the managing vendor or “Big Brother” who reaped most of the rewards. This made it difficult for multiple tool vendors to support the same project and stifled progress.
The dawn of the foundation era of open source changed all that, and we have seen transformational growth as a result. But nothing lasts forever—and I think the king of the hill may be on the way down. Why do I say this? Here are several events/trends I’ve noticed recently that lead me to believe this. Some of these things I was told in confidence, so I cannot reveal names to protect the innocent.
- The move away from “pure” open source licenses. Over the last few months, several pillars of the open source world have moved away from accepted open source licensing. Red Hat has done so with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and now Hashi has, as well. Now, to some, this change is subtle and it’s not a big deal. Only paying customers get access to source code. The overwhelming majority of users never look at the source code anyway. Nevertheless, this is a huge red flag for the community—the accepted licenses and a core tenant of open source, that source code is available to everyone, are no longer being used.
- Diminishing corporate financial support for open source communities and foundations. I guess this was to be expected in hard economic times. The path to profits from supporting open source foundations, projects and communities can sometimes be more of a dotted line than direct. And a dotted line doesn’t usually work when the bean counters are involved. In looking to cut expenses, these are low-hanging fruit.
- Closing foundations. This is a natural result of the economic strife. Foundations may operate as not-for-profits, but without operating funds, foundations can’t operate. Generally, foundations get a lot of mileage from volunteers. However, volunteers can only go so far before hard costs are involved. Also, volunteers are able to volunteer because their corporate employers empower them to do so. When their employers pull back the funding for those activities, the volunteers have to do what they can to earn a living. I have heard of at least one NFP foundation forced to cease or curtail operations due to corporate sponsor funds drying up.
- Orphaned projects. Again, this is a direct result of number two, above. With the foundations closing and supporting funds drying up, I know of at least two bellwether open source projects that are in danger of becoming orphaned. Both of these projects boast huge community numbers and dominate their markets. The fact is though, that supporting a major project costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. While millions of community members may use a project and support it, they don’t contribute dollars. Dollars that pay for hosting, infrastructure and other hard costs. Coughing up a few hundred grand to support a project is a bridge too far for some companies in the current economic climate.
What does this mean for open source software and you? Well, in the near term, if you are just a consumer of open source software, probably not much will change day-to-day. You may have to cough up some money if you want access to source code or support from the community. Bigger picture, though, is the winds of change are blowing. I think we are going to see more companies taking a Hashi-type approach to protecting their source code. This will result in more forks of open source projects. However, my experience is that most open source forks don’t succeed (with some notable exceptions—like Jenkins forked from Hudson). Companies who are building businesses around open source models will be the most at risk. I think an open core business model may be the best bet for an open source vendor. I think the future of NFPs as the stewards of open source may become a bit cloudy (no pun intended). What will take its place or fill the void? That remains to be seen.
For the record I was never a fan of that old Irish proverb, “May you live in interesting times.” This kind of upheaval is a little too interesting for me. But one thing I have learned in 30 years in tech (and more than that in life) is that change is constant. You can embrace it and thrive or shrivel and die.