Corporate Open Source Anti-patterns: A Decade Later

Talk given at P99 CONF on October 19th, 2023. This is an update to my FISL 13 talk from a decode ago: https://speakerdeck.com/bcantrill/corporate-open-source-anti-patterns. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um5bC20NTQ0.

Transcript

1. HOSTED BY Corporate Open Source Anti-patterns: A Decade Later Bryan Cantrill CTO, Oxide Computer Company
2. OXIDE A decade ago…
3. OXIDE A decade ago… WTF?!
4. OXIDE A decade ago…
5. OXIDE A decade later • In the FISL talk, I outlined the corporate open source anti-patterns that I had seen up to ~2012, vowing to come back a decade later to describe any new mistakes made in the next… • Good news: there are many new mistakes to talk about! • …but between open source going mainstream and the decline of in-person conferences, venues like FISL and OSCON have disappeared • It feels especially fitting to give this update at the online conference of a company built around an open source database!
6. OXIDE The singular importance of open source • The innovations that have the greatest leverage are those that enable further innovation – Steve Jobs’s “bicycles of the mind” • Software is magical: it is at both information and machine • When combined with the Internet and distributed version control, open source became the great engine of software innovation • By allowing us to meaningfully collaborate across distance and time, open source ranks as one of humanity’s most important developments • Open source is software’s Moore’s Law
7. OXIDE The last decade: Shifting anti-patterns • Over the last decade, where an established company engages with or creates an open source community, the behavior has vastly improved! • The new anti-patterns that have emerged have been in those companies built around open source • These companies have an increasingly complicated relationship with open source because it is very intertwined with their business!
8. OXIDE Open source as social contract • Open source is not merely an artifact, and its developers and community around it – it is also a social contract between those that construct it, those that use it, and those that build upon it • That this social contract has become the bedrock of our information infrastructure is extraordinary – few would have believed that a free market and enlightened self-interest would lead to such a construct! • The anti-patterns around the last decade largely consist of losing sight of that social construct while also failing to build a healthy business
9. OXIDE Anti-pattern: Conflating users with customers • The road to ruin for open source projects begins with conflating popularity (downloads, GitHub stars, etc.) with product/market fit • This is compounded by software companies being (historically) high gross margin/high growth businesses – and therefore catnip to investors • Investors implicitly and explicitly encourage the wishful thinking that a popular project can become a profitable business! • But in open source, popularity may in fact be an anti-signal: it may be the market telling you that the software is not monetizable at all!
10. OXIDE Anti-pattern: Conflating gross margin with net margin • Investors love software because of its high gross margin – they often ignore net margin, leaving that as a problem for future generations • Investors will not only enthusiastically capitalize a company, they will encourage behavior that also ignores net margin • This effectively forces a 1990s-era proprietary software playbook upon a company that is built around open source, which is unsustainable • It is tempting to “blame VCs” but in fact entrepreneurs are every bit as much to blame for this anti-pattern!
11. OXIDE Anti-pattern: Relicensing • A decade ago, I identified demanding copyright assignment as an anti-pattern, and very much stand by it: new projects shouldn’t do this • When copyright has been assigned, however, copyright owners must be wary of that social contract of open source • Copyright owners have a moral responsibility to their contributors! • Sublicensing or licensing to a third party is understandable, but relicensing a project to a less permissive license is wrong
12. OXIDE Anti-pattern: Anti-competitive licensing • Companies that relicense often justify their actions by conjuring selective grievance, usually from public cloud companies • To prevent these companies from developing services based on their software, they adopt licenses that restrict use • Licenses that restrict use are not open source! • This has become fashionable in the guise of the Business Source License (BUSL), which is parameterized with an open source license that the software reverts to over time
13. OXIDE Anti-pattern: Non-specific anti-competitive licensing • In the worst implementations of the BUSL, the language is left entirely vague: “You may make production use of the Licensed Work, provided such use does not include offering the Licensed Work to third parties on a hosted or embedded basis which is competitive with my products” • This is terrible because it leaves nothing but questions: what do any of these words in fact mean?! • “Products” and “competitive” are particularly load bearing; does this apply to future products? What about the products of an acquirer?
14. OXIDE Anti-pattern: Extra-license licensing • Because non-specific anti-competitive licensing raises many questions, those introducing such licenses have attempted to answer with a list of Frequently Asked Questions (?!) • It apparently needs to be said: a FAQ is not a license! • To anyone risk averse who is trying to understand the license, it really doesn’t matter what your FAQ says: put it in the license • This seems to be occurring when relicensing is happening with total disregard for the community
15. OXIDE Anti-pattern: “Freeloaders” • While the conjured grievance that serves as a casus belli for relicensing often involves public cloud companies, this is not always the case… • Sometimes, (even) smaller companies are blamed • …and in the worst cases, the community itself is blamed for taking advantage of perceived corporate largesse – they are “freeloaders” • This is absurd; if a company perceives itself as losing to its own community, it should (in the words of Laurie Bream) look inward
16. OXIDE Anti-pattern: Demanding trust after violating it • You cannot rip up one end of a social contract • When companies have disregard for their obligations under the social contract of open source, they should not expect the community – which presumably includes their customers! – to adhere to theirs • Trust builds slowly and is destroyed quickly: if companies destroy trust, communities should not be expected to assume positive intent • If trust is destroyed completely or wantonly, the source will be forked and the community will leave
17. OXIDE Learning from anti-patterns • These (still!) aren’t hard-and-fast rules – local conditions will vary! • Building a sustainable company around open source is really hard • You need to ask the question: what do customers want to pay for? With a popular project, you will likely find lots of answers to this question – support and services are not dirty words! • Remember: your business is not the community’s problem • Come back in 2033 when we try to prevent our paper clip-hungry AGI overlords from announcing that they are relicensing humanity!
18. Bryan Cantrill bryan@oxidecomputer.com @bcantrill https://oxide.computer