Tutorials
From ancient times, those holding significant influence have often leveraged their position to control or exploit individuals with less authority. This pattern is not confined to historical narratives; it is strikingly evident in contemporary fields like technology and software development, particularly within open-source endeavors.
Historically, feudalism exemplified this, where a dominant class dictated land ownership, leading to the subjugation and exploitation of those who labored tirelessly on the land and provided protection. Power under feudalism was largely concentrated in the hands of a select few, primarily the monarch and the ecclesiastical institutions. This authority was frequently delegated to nobility and lords who managed territories and often offered military protection. Yet, their power was conditional, subject to the king's revocation. These lords then exercised dominion over the peasantry, who, despite undertaking the bulk of the actual work, possessed minimal autonomy or influence. Consequently, the monarch and the church wielded supreme power, nobles and lords held some sway, while peasants and serfs, performing most of the labor, had virtually none.
Today, major cloud service providers command substantial power, with smaller entities holding some influence, and individual contributors and end-users possessing considerably less. While the distinctions are less rigid and the repercussions less severe, the escalating prominence of large cloud providers suggests a parallel in open-source power dynamics. Nevertheless, within the realm of open source, mechanisms exist to challenge and redefine these power structures.
With a growing number of applications migrating to cloud platforms, utilizing services offered by these providers has become commonplace. They can furnish these services for open-source initiatives, regardless of their direct contributions back to these projects. When contributions fall short, it can generate tension with smaller enterprises, often the primary innovators behind open-source projects. In certain situations, these smaller entities might possess the authority to alter an open-source project's license, thereby shifting the power equilibrium between themselves and the cloud provider. However, such a move by smaller companies often places maintainers, contributors, and users in an even weaker position, sparking discord around the newly relicensed project. Within open-source communities, those with the least power can then opt to create a fork of the project to reassert control, though this is a demanding undertaking with uncertain success.
Cloud Providers and the Struggle for Open Source Dominance
The interplay of power is far more intricate than it might initially appear. Many entities often fulfill multiple roles; for instance, cloud providers also participate as users, contributors, and maintainers across various open-source software projects. Moreover, companies, whether small start-ups or colossal cloud corporations, must answer to their investors, boards, and other influential stakeholders who exert significant control.
Recently, some enterprises have faced considerable pressure from venture capitalists, shareholders, or other investors to alter the licensing of their open-source projects to boost revenue, particularly when their income streams primarily or exclusively depend on an open-source project. This pressure intensifies if other companies, frequently large cloud providers, compete for the same clientele and profit from open-source projects into which the original vendor has invested substantial resources. These profitability concerns compel investors to push for new, more restrictive licenses than typical open-source agreements. Such restrictions are often designed to make it harder for cloud providers or other entities to monetize the newly relicensed open-source project.
This maneuver reverses the power dynamic, augmenting the influence of the smaller company while diminishing that of the cloud providers. However, this is not the final turn in the power struggle. This is where project forks emerge as a form of collective action, re-flipping the power balance and enabling those with less authority to seize control over their destiny through a new project fork, where they dictate its governance. Yet, this process is not without its complexities. Forking a project demands significant effort, so while the notion that anyone can fork a project is often heard, it requires considerable human and material resources to succeed. Although a smaller company can relicense an open-source project to regain power from cloud providers, these same cloud providers can counter by forking the project, thereby reclaiming their influence from the smaller entities. This strategy is often effective because large cloud providers can typically dedicate extensive personnel and other resources to ensure the success of their forks.
In a previous discussion, information was shared regarding three instances where project relicensing led to a fork (Elasticsearch / OpenSearch, Terraform / OpenTofu, and Redis/Valkey). A notable observation in all three cases is that the resulting forks tend to exhibit greater organizational diversity than their original counterparts, particularly when established under a neutral foundation, such as the Linux Foundation, rather than being initiated by a single corporation. As a direct consequence of these forks, Redis and Elasticsearch have re-adopted the AGPL V3 license to once again be classified as open source. However, it might be too late for this change to have a substantial impact, given the significant momentum and adoption gained by their respective forks.
Protecting Contributors and Ensuring Project Longevity
These fluctuations in power structures can create significant challenges for those who utilize and contribute to these initiatives. As maintainers, contributors, and even end-users of open source, we invest our most invaluable asset: time. It is imperative that the projects we commit our efforts to are sustainable in the long term, preventing the waste of this precious resource. While it is impossible to foretell which projects will endure versus those that might face relicensing or other sudden disruptions, certain indicators and considerations can guide our decisions before dedicating extensive time to any particular project.
- Contributor License Agreements (CLAs): These agreements introduce an imbalance of power within open-source communities. The authority is disproportionately shifted towards the company owning and controlling the CLA, granting it more influence than other contributors. This can enable companies to relicense a project at will.
- Neutral Foundations: Projects housed under impartial, well-managed foundations are considerably less susceptible to unexpected disruptions (unlike those governed by individual companies). Such foundations foster governance frameworks that ensure a level playing field, where individuals from diverse organizations can collaborate as equals to create mutually beneficial outcomes.
- Governance: Even projects under foundations can experience significant upheavals, typically when development is primarily driven by employees of a single company. Projects with balanced governance, where leadership roles and maintainers are drawn from various organizations through fair and transparent selection processes, are less prone to such disruptions.
- Contributor Sustainability: Does the project possess a sufficient number of contributors to sustain itself over time and adequately replace existing maintainers when they transition to new endeavors? For the open-source projects we depend on, are there enough contributors to ensure that if one were to unexpectedly retire to a remote island tomorrow, the project could continue with minimal interruption?
This directly addresses how corporations can support the open-source initiatives that are vital to them. While much has been discussed about power dynamics, companies also wield the influence and resources to effect tangible improvements. Corporate engagement can positively impact the longevity of our open-source projects, including their forks. Businesses can allocate employee time for contributions or provide financial and other resources to ensure the sustainability of open-source endeavors. Having employees actively engaged within a project also offers insights into the prevailing power dynamics, helps in understanding the project's strengths and weaknesses, and allows for internal influence on its direction.
With the expanding reach of major cloud providers, the power dynamics within open source are beginning to mirror the feudalistic structures described earlier. However, what differentiates the open-source scenario is the inherent capacity to alter or reverse these power imbalances. A smaller company's decision to shift a project away from an open-source license can reclaim power from large cloud providers, but simultaneously, it risks further disenfranchising contributors and users. This encourages those with less power to unite and fork a project, thereby restoring the power balance in favor of contributors and users, often including cloud providers in their user capacity. Within the open-source world, we possess a distinct advantage over historical peasants and serfs; we have the freedom to take collective action, forging new paths by forking projects when power is misused, ultimately shaping our own destiny and ensuring a more equitable future for all participants.
