The choices we make are relevant to others only to the extent that they abridge the choices of other software users. It is never OK to bully someone over their software freedom point-of-compromise.

• For choices which only affect the individual, it is polite and appropriate to start with the assumption the individual has mindfully considered their choices and to leave unspoken the differences one observes between those and one's own choices or a Utopian ideal. We can only truly know our own selfhood.
• For choices made by another person which affect oneself, it may be appropriate to politely ask why those choices are being made in such a way as to impose a loss of choice on oneself if they truly do. But in most cases where the abridgment is minor or avoidable, it is better to lead by example. It is rarely appropriate to hector and never OK to bully.
• For choices made by an organisation, it can be more appropriate to ask the organisation to justify their choices when they impose a loss of liberty on others. Even so, one should start out assuming they have considered the issue and reached a balanced compromise according to their mission and means.
• For organisations that choose to enjoy the benefits of software freedom themselves and then choose to withhold those freedoms from their customers, it is much more appropriate to question their decision and perhaps weight that decision heavily against any purchasing choices. If they pretend they are somehow open source while using licenses not generally accepted as delivering software freedom to all, public criticism is likely to be warranted – that's an abridgment too far.

What else is “an abridgment too far”? When I can only choose systems that leave me with no practical software freedoms, and when the person or organisation forcing that choice either has not considered the issue or in doing so has needlessly ignored software freedom as a key factor. In just these cases it may be reasonable to politely inquire why and then to go further if the response is unreasonable.

Tags, Notes and Mentions

• #OpenSource #FreeSoftware #SoftwareFreedom #FOSS #FLOSS #Terminology #Definition
• The image is my own, of a gull slipstreaming the air around the Manly Fast Ferry in Sydney harbour

Follow @webmink@the.webm.ink to be informed of new posts. To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.

Post-industrial society comprises three sectors in the worldview undergirding the European Union:

• The Commercial Sector includes industrial, extractive, service, logistic and administrative companies. They are represented pro se, by industry and trade associations, by consulting and lobbying companies and more.
  
• The Labour Sector includes workers of all kinds – industrial, skilled, research, educational, managerial, entrepreneurial and more. They are represented by trade unions, professional bodies, trade associations and more.
• The Consumer Sector comprises everyone spending their personal wealth at all scales. They are represented by consumer associations, civil society organisations, religious organisations and more.

But the Internet has driven change over the last 50 years from which has arisen the World Wide Web and thence the Open Source movement, which in turn have catalysed many open culture movements in their rainbow mantles. The wave of open has produced many phenomena, good, bad and pending judgement – including the gig economy, open knowledge communities like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive, technology giants like Facebook and Google, open software stacks and supply chains and much, much more.

The roles people play in this open wave do not fit comfortably into the three post-industrial sectors. An individual would be expected predominantly to fall within the consumer sector, with a section of their life represented in the labour sector. But an open source developer can play roles characteristic of a commercial sector player, innovating and creating soft goods (commercial sector) which are assembled (commercial sector) or used (consumer sector) by others. A video streamer may be creating new copyrighted works of great value (commercial sector) that are widely viewed (consumer sector). An author or musician can now create their own compelling brand without becoming an employee of a publisher.

This is the new fourth sector. It comprises individuals, often connected and facilitated by ad-hoc or charitable communities, playing the roles of the commercial, labour and consumer sectors in varying mixes all at the same time. The fourth sector is poorly represented by the entities and roles associated with all three of the other sectors. That's inevitable; each fourth sector role will fuse together an aspect represented and an aspect confronted by any of the entities and roles dedicated to the three traditional sectors. So a consumer association won't advocate well for open source developers because an aspect of their existence is classified as commercial. A streamer won't be well represented by a trade union because they embody both consumer and commercial aspects. And so on.

As a result, existing consultation mechanisms used by legislators are guaranteed to fail. When they try to deal with open source by expressing the understanding they have gained of proprietary software, they will keep causing collateral damage — as we have seen in the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and many times previously. The need will increase as regulation tries to control, account for or promote the activities of the fourth sector without consulting it.

One significant reason this has been happening for such a long time already is the lack of a term to use to raise the issue. That's why I am proposing to call this sector of European society the “fourth sector”. It extends well beyond open source, covering any new, citizen-centric economic activity which is hard to have represented with only the existing commercial, labour and consumer lenses. Let's tell the Commission and other governments that it's time to care about the fourth sector, which is the driving force for all the changes they want to embrace — or control.

Notes, Tags & Mentions

• This essay and the thinking behind it about a “meshed society” has been around for quite some time — indeed, I named my consulting company after it in 2013 because it under-girded all my thinking at Sun and before that at IBM! I finally got round to a web search to see if the term “fourth sector” was in use and ... yes it is, in the USA! Defined in a very similar way to the way I have done, although with the focus on only entrepreneurial activity, using the term as a synonym of “for-benefit company” and omitting the dimension of individual and local activity without incorporation. See Building Better and Fourth Sector Group for example. Their concept amazingly omits open source. Time to remedy that.
• Photo is my own, of the edition of Auguste Rodin's “The Burghers of Calais” (“Les Bourgeois de Calais”) exhibited at the Musée Rodin in Paris.
• #CRA #OpenSource #4thSector #Policy #Democracy #Representation #Terminology

Follow @webmink@the.webm.ink to be informed of new posts. To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.

When you say to a native English speaker that something is “free”, their first and dominant thought will most likely be about the price of the thing in question. “Free? I don't have to pay?” They may well go on to say “That sounds cheap – and probably inferior!” Yes, it is possible to redirect that initial impression to other ways of understanding “free” (“no, I mean free as in freedom”), but George Lakoff explained long ago that the initial linguistic “palette” from which we paint colours the interpretation of all future conceptual metaphors in the conversation – the initial metaphor sets a frame that interprets and thus constrains future discussion. Things are further complicated by the fact that, as it turns out the source code is indeed available without paying – in many cases as an installable binary – not as a goal but as a consequence of the embodied liberties.

As a result, when “free software” is invoked in English by a non-specialist, nuance concerning the liberty of the individual as self-sovereign in software is lost, and subsequent usage tends to be argued within a “price frame” not a “liberty frame”. So the dominant argument for at least a decade of the shift of free/open source to dominance was that free software is cheaper, saves money, doesn't require payment for licenses and so on. This led to emphasis on donating to projects, with even ambiguous terms like “contribute” and “give back” being understood monetarily – in terms of delivering compensatory value that is detached from social engagement or the enjoyment of software freedoms.

Even after many people switched to talking about “open source”, the frame set in early usage persisted, with people obsessed with price (“TCO”) over capability or potential. Today sustainability is seen mainly in terms of “paying the maintainers”, long after we should know better and first address the dynamics of inclusive governance. This is further magnified by actors who mostly eschew community trying to justify their sociopathy; as one community peer commented,

this is reinforced by the narratives from for-profit businesses struggling to find a successful business model, citing how users of the open-source licenced software they produced are not “giving back”.

Yet the communities in which I have participated have rarely sought money, at least initially. What they really wanted was for users to join in, for improved software to be made available to all, for the rights they enjoy to be available to others. Some seek to compel, others just to encourage, but all of these are concepts drawn from a social frame rather than from a price frame.

There's a deep irony to this, as proponents of the Free Software terminology have frequently accused proponents of the alternative phrase “open source” of losing the connection to user liberty. But in fact it does a better job setting the conceptual frame for outsiders to one where interpretation follows “open” to assume a lack of “closed”, the presence of freedoms to manipulate and use the source and the other attributes supposedly only advanced by the earlier phrase! The unintended conceptual metaphor invoked by “free” poisons whatever framing we apply and we need to consciously evade that effect.

This also reads on my reflections on volunteering. Once we are stuck in a price frame, we see participation in projects within that frame and talk about paid and unpaid volunteers as if that is the key qualification. We worry about sustainability in terms of “who is going to pay”. But the real issue with sustainability is not primarily about money, but more about the presence of skills and innovation within a community and the willingness of newcomers to stay. In turn that is frequently a function of the objective presence of software freedoms.

This is not to deny the valid criticism that the Open Source and Free Software movement has been subverted by those who want to use their liberty asocially or even antisocially in pursuit of profit. But it's just possible that the best way to cover that sociopathy is the invocation of a liberty-enhancing frame, rather than trying to work within the constraints of the price frame. We need to try harder to effectively apply social framing to open source if we are to address the issues we see around sustainability, ethical use and corporate annexation of our movement.

Tags, Notes and Mentions

• #OpenSource #Volunteer #Sustainability #FOSS #FLOSS #Terminology #Definition
• Inspired by comments in a Mastodon conversation, now auto-deleted.
• The image – of decor in a restaurant – is my own.

Follow @webmink@the.webm.ink to be informed of new posts. To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.

The shadow may seem more real than the thing itself

Kinds of Contributor

To believe that open source projects being made by volunteers is unsustainable is to surrender to the view that open source is a business model. To illustrate this more, here are some fictional case studies of varying relationships to an open source project. In every case, the contributor is a “volunteer” but the impact of this on the project varies greatly.

Alice the Alpha Contributor

Alice contributes to (fictional) project CatHerd at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). The project she works on, like all ASF projects, is composed exclusively of “volunteer developers”. Yet many of them — in some projects most of them — are also employees of a company that pays them to work on that same software. Indeed, Alice works for BigCorp Inc, who pay her pretty well for the code she writes.

CatHerd is freely licensed to everyone under the Apache License and there is no scope for natural or artificial scarcity of the code. The work in a project like this is sustainable not because of the “volunteer” relationship of the developer, but largely because of the “employee” relationship. That relationship itself must arise from some business model at BigCorp where the continuous improvement of CatHerd is valuable, but that is of no concern to other CatHerd contributors or to the ASF.

• In relation to the ASF, Alice is a volunteer, working without payment and contributing her code to the project without the exchange of a consideration — indeed, Alice signed an ICLA giving the ASF rights equivalent to ownership of every line she contributes to CatHerd.
• In relation to her employer, the work is done in exchange for compensation and the ownership of the work she is producing is passing to BigCorp in exchange for that consideration. BigCorp then freely grants the ASF rights equivalent to ownership by completing a CCLA to say Alice can do this on their behalf.

Due to her consistent contribution, Alice is also a volunteer member of the Project Management Committee (PMC) of CatHerd. Her employer has historically been ambivalent about this and does not prevent her participation as long as it does not distract her from her work. In this role, she is only a volunteer; there is no alternative relationship to describe it.

But the PMC has recently had to select a new chair for the PMC, and they have elected Alice. With the agreement of the ASF Board, Alice will become a vice-president of the ASF as a consequence of this additional voluntary role – it's unpaid, naturally. BigCorp is pretty pleased about this and plans to tell its customers that their valued employee is VP of CatHerd, so they agree to support Alice by allocating more of her time to take care of the additional responsibilities as well as covering her travel to ApacheCon. So in this role, Alice has multiple relationships; she is a volunteer at the CatHerd PMC, but she is a volunteer VP at ASF supported by BigCorp.

Derek the Dilettante

Derek is also a contributor to Apache CatHerd, which he uses in the software controlling his model train layout (which is now getting so large and complex that his husband is beginning to wonder if it's still OK...). Derek's job at the Submerged Log Company is entirely unrelated to either Apache CatHerd or the model train layout, so he has taken care to ensure his terms of employment do not in any way affect his hobby interests. Derek only has a volunteer relationship to CatHerd and to the ASF, but he's a consistent contributor because he is tinkering every weekend with his train layout and fixing bugs in CatHerd as he goes.

Eoife the Consultant

Eoife is also a contributor to Apache CatHerd. They use CatHerd within consulting engagements with some clients for their own consultancy, Aedam & Eoife Snakecharming, but there's no revenue stream associated with this usage for A&ES. Eoife is the sole maintainer of the rather complex LitterBox subsystem of CatHerd and since they have no clients at the moment there are quite a few open issues for LitterBox that are causing something of a stink. While Eoife notionally has a commercial relationship with CatHerd relative to A&ES, it turns out not to be sufficient to cover further contribution.

Diverse Contribution

Looking across these various relationships:

• Alice volunteers extensively at CatHerd and the ASF but this only affects CatHerd's sustainability positively as she also has an employed relationship covering her time and work.
• BigCorp has a volunteer relationship to CatHerd but has a business model which means paying Alice to work on it will continue. This is positive for CatHerd's sustainability.
• CatHerd is an Apache project so is controlled on a purely charitable basis by the ASF. This is neutral with regard to sustainability. Research suggests that if ASF paid some contributors, the activity by those with only a volunteer relationship would decline, so maintaining a volunteer relationship with all is a positive.
• Derek has only a volunteer relationship with CatHerd, but because of his model train obsession this is a positive for CatHerd's sustainability as he spends more time on it than he does with his husband (which may prove a negative eventually).
• Eoife was a key contributor to CatHerd and maintains a critical component, all as a volunteer in relation to the project. They seem to have a commercially supported relationship with CatHerd but actually, out of view of the project, this has largely ceased. This is negative for CatHerd's sustainability.

The biggest challenge to the sustainability of Apache CatHerd is not the volunteer relationships of the contributors. That is a key enabling characteristic of open source. Rather, the diversity of the contributions to the project as a whole and to its critical components is more important. Ideally there is a succession plan as and when any individual contributor bows out (as Eoife is doing).

A project that has few contributors per component is at great risk not because the contributors are volunteers but because each contributor could leave at any time when their affiliations or motivations change. This is even more true of a single-vendor open source project, which can switch away from viable open source at any moment it suits the company.

To make open source projects sustainable, they need diverse contributors, with diverse motivations. Pay the maintainers where that's needed, for sure. But make sure there are many, not just a few. And realise the price frame is the wrong one for understanding open source.

(In case it's not obvious, all the names above are fictional apart from the ASF!)

See also: #OpenSource #Volunteer #Sustainability #Terminology

Follow @webmink@the.webm.ink to be informed of new posts. To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.