In the meantime, I am volunteering for a non-profit that helps FOSS projects secure sustainable funding, and goodness, that is soooo hard! Enterprises (where money is) are afraid of FOSS, and many prefer to engage commercially with commercial open source companies, backed by VCs
> Democratic process does not exist when everyone is free to start a project. Users also often do not know what they want either until it's shown to them.
Apparently do not have the same definition of "democracy". The definition that I use is more or less the Swiss system. At the top, a group of people that takes decisions that they think it is the best - and the people that have the power to override the decision if they organize a vote or propose a new law.
> What you seem to be suggesting is to replace open source model with grant academia model if I'm being generous
Nope... Read what open-source-economy.com or tea.xyz - that is the future of OSS IMO.
> It works for products, but it doesn't work well for libraries, frameworks, dev tools, and the like.
That is why we need to create an open-source ecosystem where projects that get paid redistribute to their dependencies.
I have in mind 2 OSS ecosystems: open-source-economy.com and tea.xyz
Open-source sustainability won't be solved by donations alone. As highlighted in the article, donating is incredibly convenient nowadays, so when companies or individuals don't contribute, it's typically due to a lack of willingness.
To take on and compete with the proprietary model, one must generate comparable revenues and attract similar levels of investment. The solution to open-source sustainability is straightforward: people pay for what they genuinely need. Commercial open-source excels in this aspect!
However, as you may know, it comes with its challenges. When a company profits from an open-source program, decision-making authority about what to implement or exclude lies firmly with that company, diverging from the open-source ethos. Yet, the real issue isn't the existence of a business model and revenue, but rather the absence of community control.
This underscores the importance of addressing the root of the issue. To enhance open-source sustainability, we must identify what currently works best and tackle its associated problems. This means embracing a commercial open-source business model while ensuring that decisions about the software aren't solely in the hands of a select few developers or corporations. Instead, a democratic approach should be embraced, where the user community plays a significant role in shaping these processes. Community control guarantees that the software evolves in a way that aligns with the needs and values of its users.
1. Open source is about the code belonging to the community
2. Open source projects can not survive without funding - as you develop
3. So, both (open source and company) can be compatible if and only if funding belong to the community. In other world, if the open source company is decentralised and democratic. And that is what we need to fight for.
In the meantime, I am volunteering for a non-profit that helps FOSS projects secure sustainable funding, and goodness, that is soooo hard! Enterprises (where money is) are afraid of FOSS, and many prefer to engage commercially with commercial open source companies, backed by VCs