Going With The Grain

If you’re managing community or developer relationships for your employer, a crucial principle is to “go with the grain” of the community — promote and embrace the freedoms it needs and the expectations it cherishes — rather than take actions that result in easily-anticipated opposition.

More at https://devrel.net/community/going-with-the-grain

FLOSS Weekly 479: Pidgin

This week Simon co-hosted episode 479, an entertaining interview about the Pidgin project, one of the most important Open Source Free software projects. It’s a multi-platform program that allows pretty much any instant messaging system to be used from a single interface. It also includes libpurple, a library that can be used in other software to do the same thing, and Finch, a terminal-based IM app with all the same capabilities.

Amazingly, Pidgin is developed by a tiny group of part-time developers. Maybe it’s time for the Open Source community to step in and help to guarantee the future of this important, widely-used app and library? A donation might be a start but they seem to need more…

FLOSS Weekly 476: VIPERBuilder

In a last-minute change, Simon stepped in to host FLOSS Weekly 476 interviewing the Etsy VIPERBuilder project with Jonathan Bennett. That’s an iOS tool to help developers use the VIPER architecture to build apps. VIPER is an alternative to MVC.

Simon mentioned (or should have mentioned):

Unknown Others

Open Source is for you, yes. But it’s also for unknown others.

A cow pulls a lawnmower on the Rajpath in New Delhi

Being close to an open source project, it’s easy to imagine that everyone sees the project the way you and your fellow community members do. This especially applies to the corporate sponsors of a single-company project; anticipating use by competitors they often want to apply controls to who can use the code.

A core objective of software freedom is to ensure that the code can be used not only by your collaborators, but also by unknown others with undisclosed goals. All OSI-approved licenses ensure everyone is permitted to use software for any purpose without further permission, delivering this core objective.

Random code liberation leading to unexpected application (AKA “innovation”) has always been and will remain a hallmark of open source. Borrowing portions of great code — from elegantly executed algorithms to useful libraries to entire components — is an intended mode of exercise for software freedom and not an artefact. Leaving it available is essential.

The same provisions that allow code reuse also enable the crucial pressure-release valve of open source; the fork. The ability to take the code and do something the original author or the current community don’t want is an essential freedom, not an unwanted side effect. Indeed, it is the origin of many of the most significant moments in open source.

It was a fork that rescued OpenOffice.org from corporate neglect, giving us LibreOffice. A fork allowed ForgeRock to rescue Sun’s identity management software from abandonment, thus saving huge investments in its deployment and creating a highly valued “unicorn” startup in the process. The MariaDB fork is keeping the MySQL project focussed on community rather than just the commercial goals of a megacorporation. Even the Firefox browser was a kind of fork from Mozilla, albeit a strategic one.

Making open source code freely available to unknown others is thus axial and not tangential to open source. That’s why I get extremely concerned by anything that wants to be seen as “open source” but still tries to lock out the outsiders, the rebels and the aliens. Attempts to do this range from the crude — like using a “time-locked” license that only becomes open source after a significant delay for “monetisation” — to more subtle approaches like requiring an account to access the source repository and then only allowing paying customers to easily have an account.

The code may be under an open source license, but software freedom is not present if accessing or using it requires being or knowing an insider. None of this is theoretical; indeed, Forgerock and MariaDB are themselves playing these games despite their origin story being rooted in software freedom.

So remain sceptical when software freedom is abridged or diminished in pursuit of a business model or of “safety”. Whatever that’s called, it’s not open source.


(A version of this appeared in the Linux Voice section of Linux (Pro) Magazine 207)

FLOSS Weekly 471: ScanCode

Simon was co-host of FLOSS Weekly 471, which featured the ScanCode Toolkit. ScanCode analyses a source package and lists what licenses are found in it. The toolkit can be used as part of a larger solution and together with the new AboutCode Manager provides open source compliance staff with an easy way to know what licenses they are actually dealing with.

Simon mentioned:

FLOSS Weekly 470: Processmaker

Simon co-hosted FLOSS Weekly 470 which was an interview with Processmaker, a BPM system with an AGPL-licensed core that’s proprietary for enterprise use and an Apache licensed visual designer.

Simon mentioned: