Learn how blockchain can become a decentralized open source subsidy model.

The Cathedral and The Bazaar is a classic open source story written 20 years ago by Eric Steven Raymond (ESR). In this story, ESR describes a new revolutionary software development model in which complex software projects are built with little or no centralized management. The new model is open Source.

ESR’s story compares two models:

  • The classic model (represented by “Cathedral”), in which software is produced by a small group of people in a closed and controlled environment through slow and steady releases.
  • And new models (represented by “bazaars”) in which software is produced in an open environment where individuals are free to participate, but can still produce a stable and coherent system. Some of the reasons open source has been so successful can be traced back to the founding principles described by ESR. Release early, release often, and accept that many minds are better than one, giving open source projects access to the world’s talent pool (which few companies can match with closed-source models).

Twenty years after ESR’s rethinking analysis of the hacker community, we see open source as the dominant model. It’s no longer just about satisfying developers’ personal preferences, it’s where innovation happens. Even the world’s largest software companies are shifting to this model in order to remain dominant.

Barter system

If we look closely at how the open source model works in practice, we realize that it is a closed system, open only to open source developers and technologists. The only way to influence the direction of a project is to join the open source community, learn the written and unwritten rules, learn how to contribute, code standards, etc., and do it yourself.

That’s how bazaars work, and that’s where this barter system analogy comes from. A barter system is a method of exchanging services and goods for other services and goods. In the marketplace (where the software is built) this means that in order to get something, you have to be a producer yourself and give something back — by exchanging your time and knowledge to get things done. A marketplace is a place where open source developers interact with other open source developers and generate open source software in an open source manner.

The barter system was a big step forward, evolving from self-sufficiency, where everyone had to be the best in all industries. Marketplaces using barter systems (open source models) allow people with common interests and different skills to collect, collaborate and create things that individuals cannot create on their own. The barter system is simple and not as complex as modern money systems, but it does have some limitations, such as:

  • Lack of divisibility: Inability to exchange larger indivisible goods/values for smaller goods/values in the absence of a common medium of exchange. For example, if you want to make even small changes in an open source project, sometimes you may still have to go through a high barrier to entry.
  • Store value: If a project is important to your company, you may need to make a significant investment/commitment. But because it’s a barter system between open source developers, the only way to have a strong voice is to hire lots of open source contributors, which isn’t always possible.
  • Transfer value: If you invest in one project (trained staff, hire open source developers) and want to shift focus to another, it’s impossible to quickly transfer expertise, reputation, and influence (that you had on your last project).
  • Time decoupling: Barter systems do not provide a good mechanism for deferment or advance commitment. In the open source world, this means that users are unable to express commitment or interest in the project in a measurable way in advance or in the future. Below, we’ll explore how to use the back door of the marketplace to address these limitations.

The monetary system

People are connected to the fair for different reasons: some study there, some cater to the personal interests of developers, and some work for a large software factory. Because the only way to have a voice in the marketplace is to become part of the open source community and join the barter system, many large software companies hire these developers and pay them in currency in order to gain credibility in the open source world. This means that the monetary system can be used to influence the marketplace. Open source is no longer just to satisfy the preferences of individual developers. It is also an important part of overall software production around the world, and many people want to influence it.

Open source sets guidelines for developer interaction and builds consistent systems in a distributed manner. It determines how the project is governed, how the software is built, and how its results are distributed to users. It is an open consensus model of decentralized entities working together to build high-quality software. But the open source model does not include how to subsidize open source, whether directly or indirectly, through intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, regardless of the marketplace.

Currently, there is no equivalent of a decentralized open source development model for subsidy purposes. Most open source subsidies are centralized, usually with one company leading the project by hiring the project’s lead open source developer. Honestly, this is as good as it gets, because it ensures that the developers will be paid for the long term and the project will continue to thrive.

There are exceptions to the project monopoly scenario: for example, some Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) projects are developed by a large number of competing companies. In addition, the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) aims to keep the projects they manage from being dominated by a single vendor by encouraging diverse contributors, but in reality most popular projects are still single-vendor projects.

What is missing is an open, decentralized model, like a marketplace without centralized coordination and ownership, where consumers (open source users) and producers (open source developers) interact with each other driven by market forces and open source values. To complement open source, such models must also be open and decentralized, which is why I think blockchain technology is the best fit.

Most existing blockchain (and non-blockchain) platforms designed to subsidize open source development focus on bug bounties, small and piecemeal tasks. A few also focus on funding new open source projects. But not many platform is designed to provide and maintain open source projects continue to development mechanism – basically, the system can emulate or open core open source service providers, SaaS based on open source products of the company’s behavior: ensure that developers can achieve sustained and predictable, and according to the actuator (user) guide project development priorities. Such a model would address the limitations of the barter system listed above:

  • Allow divisibility: If you want some minor fixes, you can pay a small fee instead of the full cost of being an open source developer on the project.
  • Store value: You can invest a lot of money in a project and ensure it continues to grow and you have a say in it.
  • Transfer value: At any time, you can stop investing in a project and move the money to another project.
  • Time decoupling: Allows regular periodic payments and subscriptions.

There are other benefits, too, purely because such blockchain-based systems are transparent and decentralized: quantifying the value/usefulness of projects based on user commitments, open roadmap commitments, decentralized decisions, etc.

conclusion

On the one hand, we see big companies hiring open source developers and acquiring open source startups and even infrastructure platforms (e.g., Microsoft’s acquisition of GitHub). Many, if not most, open source projects that run successfully over the long term are clustered around a single vendor. The importance and centralization of open source is a fact.

On the other hand, the challenges of maintaining open source software are becoming more apparent, and many are delving deeper into the field and its underlying issues. There are some projects that have a high profile and a large number of contributors, but there are many other important projects that lack sufficient contributors and maintainers.

There are many efforts to address open source challenges through blockchains. These projects should promote transparency, decentralization and subsidies, and establish a direct link between open source users and developers. The field is still young, but progress is fast, and over time, the marketplace will have a cryptocurrency system.

Given enough time and enough technology, decentralization can happen at many levels:

  • The Internet is a decentralized medium that unleashes the potential for global sharing and access to knowledge.
  • Open source is a decentralized model of collaboration that unleashing global innovation potential.
  • Similarly, blockchain can complement open source as a decentralized open source subsidy model.

Please follow my other posts in this area on Twitter.

Via: opensource.com/article/18/…

By Bilgin Lbryam, lujun9972

This article is originally compiled by LCTT and released in Linux China