Open Source

The open-source movement has taken an intriguing turn in recent years. Beyond the concerns about open-source software being consumed for AI training, there seems to be mounting pressure on these projects from third parties seeking to profit from the work of others. Recently, the authors of Redis, a popular data storage solution, began restricting access to their software for Amazon. The tech giant had been using Redis for free, only to charge their customers for the tool, while the Redis developers saw no compensation. As a result, the developers maintaining Redis missed out on what could have been millions or even billions of dollars in revenue. This is hardly a story that inspires confidence in the open-source model.

And just this week, Matt Mullenweg, the creator of WordPress, has voiced concerns about WP Engine, a hosting platform that relies on WordPress as its core software. In response, WP Engine has sued Mullenweg for publicly criticizing the platform, going so far as to compare it to something as harmful as cancer - certainly not a delicate way to engage in dialogue. Due to this ongoing conflict, WordPress has gone as far as blocking access to WP Engine, resulting in many websites breaking because they rely on that connection for plugins and other resources. While the legal battle may center around trademarks, it seems to reveal deeper frustrations about profiting off someone else’s hard work.

Meanwhile, developers who aim to create open-source tools or seek contributions or compensation often find themselves with little assurance of sustainability. This leaves both the developers and the users of these tools in a state of uncertainty. There are, of course, exceptions—like Caleb Porzio of Laravel Livewire—who have managed to turn open-source projects into sustainable careers. However, I think these are exceptions. Porzio, for example, has diversified by offering premium licenses, selling screencasts, and gaining sponsorships through GitHub. But succeeding with this model requires a significant initial investment, commitment, and responsibility—qualities not everyone is prepared to take on. And of course, the quality of the work needs to be exceptional from the start to even have a chance of success.

For those relying on platforms like Patreon for income, that may offer some support, but even then, there's the issue of app store taxes. Apple and Google take up to 30% of transactions, including money intended to support solo developers, content creators, or small startups. It highlights how difficult it can be to make a decent living from the “pay whatever you want” model, especially for those just starting out. Perhaps this underscores the importance of passion in driving these efforts, but passion alone may not be enough if pursuing it means risking your financial stability or sacrificing the income needed to support yourself and your family.

This brings us to the issue of sustainability, which is particularly visible at scale. Companies like Meta have released Llama, their Large Language Model, for free, providing access through their own services. Given the significant costs associated with training such models, managing access, and generating high-quality responses, it’s hard to see how this model can endure—unless advertising or premium subscriptions provide the necessary revenue. But even then, it's clear that “free” is not a sustainable business model, not for large corporations or individual creators.

In the end, the open-source model might just prove to be nothing more than an idealistic experiment, revealing a common human contradiction: taking advantage of someone else's work might not seem problematic—until it happens to you. Let's just hope the majority of us can continue to recognize and appreciate the ongoing efforts of those who provide value to the world, while ensuring their work endures under fair licenses and protections—safeguarding creators from others profiting off their hard-earned investments.