Open source seems to have become synonymous with free work, this is what they have expressed most of the developers in a recent Digital Ocean survey. In it he tells us that developers feel they should be compensated for their contributions, first from the big tech companies.
The survey is based on feedback from 4.440 developers involved in open source projects in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. More than half of those surveyed believe that it should be paid attendees to contribute to open source projects (54%), while about a third are undecided and only 12% of respondents are against paying people for their contributions.
On the question of who should be paid, the report highlights a divide among respondents.
35% believe that maintainers should be paid, 30% believe that contributors should be paid and 25% believe that authors should be paid for their work.
Interestingly, younger generations are much more supportive of paying contributions to open source than some of its older peers. 60% of respondents aged 18-24 believe that people should be compensated for their contributions to open source, while only 53% of those aged 25-34, 51% of those aged 35-44, 42% of those aged 45 to 54 and only 34% of those over 55 agree.
Respondents were also asked who should fund these payments. About half of those surveyed think tech companies should fund open source contributions, while a quarter think project owners or individuals should pay.
In an environment fueled by donations freeing up the maintainers' 'salary', Andre Staltz notes that “Most of the 80% of open source projects deemed sustainable actually receive revenue below industry standards or even from below the poverty line. In the figures, the creator of the social network Manyverse reviewed the 58 most popular projects on the OpenCollective platform, a choice justified by the availability of financial data for the projects listed there.
“More than 50% of the projects are marked in red: they are those that cannot provide the necessary support to those who keep them below the poverty line. 31% of projects are marked in orange and consist of developers ready to work for a salary that would be considered unacceptable in our industry. 12% is marked in green and only 3% is marked in blue: Webpack and Vue.js. GitHub revenue per star matters - sustainable projects typically have more than $ 2 per star. However, the median value is $ 1,22 per star. Team size is also important for sustainability: the smaller the team, the more likely they are to support their maintainers. The average donation per year is $ 217, which is substantial when
Staltz believes that one of the problems open source is that “these projects on which many companies depend need donations and they do not get enough.
“From the beginning, you have to launch the project under a strong copyleft license. Then, you have to start a crowdfunding campaign to turn the project license into a more permissive one once there are enough funds available ”, he suggests as a financing model for open source projects.
Although overall open source participation declined in 2020 according to the Digital Ocean survey, 63% of those who actively participated report an increase in their activity.
This is due to three factors: 29% say they have had more free time, 28% want to use this time to learn and 15% are adamant about their contribution to a cause close to their heart.
Source: https://www.digitalocean.com
In relation to the two main issues of the article, I can comment on the following:
1.- It is essential that all people involved in open source and "free access" projects are rewarded and / or receive a bonus for their contributions to such projects.
2.- However, when it comes to deciding who to send the contributions to, one faces the following moral dilemma - which can be seen in the Case Study:
Suppose that we use GNU / Linux, Linux Mint, Apache Open Office, GNU Radio, Jupyter and Python to promote -in a Public University- the use of Open Source Technology and its multiple benefits in the Teaching-Learning Process of the Telecommunications Area. Add to this assumption that the project lacks Institutional and / or Government Sponsorships. There is only the blind FE and the few resources of a small group of teachers (at least two) who try to promote the use of such technology among their students; The same ones that -in the medium term- will be integrated into the Labor Market.
What, then, are the problems faced by Teachers and Students?
1.- Leave things as they are and avoid the learning curves of such actors as well as the cash and time costs that the Teaching-Learning Technology Change implies.
2.- Pay the "toll fee" (in time, effort and headaches) invariably claimed by Open Source Technology; and, simultaneously, to act both as Promoters of the Movement and to help ensure that Knowledge is within the Reach of All who want and / or need to promote their self-learning and work skills.
It is when the second line of action is adopted that the moral dilemma concatenated with the one involved in the first decision arises:
IF I HAVE A LIMITED ECONOMIC RESOURCE (Well, from the salary of a subject teacher, savings must be made to support colleagues involved and endeavoring to deliver Products / Services of the quality that characterize the Open Source movement) but I am using the Products / Services of the following Communities:
1.-GNU / Linux.
2.-GNU Radio.
3.-Python.
4.-Jupyter.
5.-Apache OpenOffice.
6.-Linux Mint.
7.-ALSA.
WHO DO I REACH a resource that is usually very limited? Is there a mechanism where - if someone like the undersigned - to honestly acknowledge before the FSF that certain products are used, ONE Single Deposit is made and from there an Equitable distribution is made among the Communities?
Well, as I understand it, in order for me to use Linux Mint, at least Four Communities must do their job: GNU / Linux, Debian, Ubuntu and Linux Mint and there also another moral dilemma materializes: Who of these does more work?
Finally, and without trying to justify the lack of contributions in cash by the undersigned, AS AN ACT OF PERSONAL BLIND FAITH, I assume that FIRST it is convenient to generate the need for Technology and later the large community linked to the open source movement will be able to access greater benefits for colleagues who share with us: HEART, FAITH, knowledge, effort, time and part of their cash (because the Work WELL DONE with Joy, Free and Selflessly,…,…, IT IS PRICE FREE !,…, nor is there anyone can afford it! HOWEVER, IT ALSO HAS MONEY VALUE).
Conclusions:
1.- We must pay the COST of our FAITH in a Community of Interests that will surpass us as individuals, either temporarily or in contribution to the welfare of Humanity.
2.- The Products and Services they offer must be promoted to the Community where we operate, both the FSF and the Open Source movement among the new generations: there are as many Users as there are Software, Documentation, Services, etc. Potentials that we only have to remember Leonardo da Vinci: «Oh! God and you who give us everything for just one effort! "
3.- What would become of the GNU / Linux Community if the original promoters of the movement had first noticed how much they were paid and then went to work?
4.- What would be of Humanity if Pascal, Leibnitz, Gauss, Fourier, Newton, Planck, De Broglie,…,…, and many others HAD DENIED US access to the product of their effort, dedication and, above all, to THE QUALITY OF THEIR WORK, which perhaps at the time WAS NEITHER ADEQUATELY PAID NOR EVEN THE SCOPE AND BENEFITS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE / would generate 200 years later?
5.- I thank in advance ALL THE COLLEAGUES who contribute their effort, dedication and dedication to build and grow this Great Community of Interests and Collective Purposes,…,…, I FIRMLY BELIEVE that no contribution -small and / or capital- can PAY the quality of the Work that they share with us through their products and services. My only and modest contribution to the collective is to Continue Promoting this Philosophy and Practice of Life among the new generations, to Increase the Needs (Potential Clients) and in this way improve the Benefits that Colleagues can receive, ..., ..., since in the end ,…,…, Everything stays here! and we are part of a Task that temporarily and individually surpasses us.
Atte. JR López-Miranda (Mexico).
on March 2, 2021