Open-source extremism, and how the OSI can help

One of the profound failings of the open-source movement is how insular it has allowed its ideology to be. While the commercialization of open source has necessarily forced a new dialectic into open source (one with many different shades and permutations), it's amazing just how unyielding some opinions can be. While constancy is good, it can also be the "hobgoblin of mediocre minds" and reflects a somewhat stagnant discussion within the open-source development community.

It also reflects the theme of noted legal scholar Cass Sunstein's new book, Going to Extremes: How Like Minds United and Divide, part of which is excerpted in The Spectator ("To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with").

The message is unnerving and suggests the importance of broadening the open-source tent:

When people find themselves in groups of like-minded types, they are especially likely to move to extremes....The most important reason for group polarisation, which is key to extremism in all its forms, involves the exchange of new information. Group polarisation often occurs because people are telling one another what they know, and what they know is skewed in a predictable direction. When they listen to each other, they move.

Suppose you are in a group of people whose members tend to think that Israel is the real aggressor in the Middle East conflict, that eating beef is unhealthy, or that same-sex unions are a good idea. In such a group, you will hear many arguments to that effect. Because of the initial distribution of views, you will hear relatively fewer opposing views. It is highly likely that you will have heard some, but not all, of the arguments that emerge from the discussion.

After you have heard all of what is said, you will probably shift further in the direction of thinking that Israel is the real aggressor, opposing eating beef, and favoring civil unions. And even if you do not shift--even if you are impervious to what others think--most group members will probably be affected.

Lest we think Sunstein is just picking on Harvard Law School graduates (I joke!), it's amazing to watch this same destructive group-think plague the open-source community, a portion of which is on display in the comments to any of my posts that discuss such horrifying ideas as "Open Core" (gasp!), Microsoft as a bona fide open-source player (yikes!), or, really, anything that fails to discuss knighthood and/or sainthood for Richard Stallman.

We've come a long way since the early days of the free-software movement. Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly, Michael Tiemann, Larry Augustin, and others broke that free-software mold with the coining of "open source" back in 1998, but far too many opinions seem stuck in a calcified past, largely because they spend a lot of time yelling down opposing views, rather than associating with them and listening to them.

Here's a specific policy request: while the Open Source Initiative has expanded its board, of which I was once a terribly unproductive part, the OSI has not expanded its ideological base. The OSI can help itself and the open-source community by enlarging the experience base of its board members.

This might include, for example, more business-minded open-source people. But it would also be helpful to include those in the open-source community that are deeply affected by open source, but may have very different views on what open source should mean, including representatives from Microsoft and Oracle, or simply developers who disagree with the current board's opinions.

I'm sure the current OSI board disagrees. It's not alone. OSI board aspirant Bruce Perens partly based his candidacy to be on the board on the premise that the OSI needs fewer vendors represented and definitely not Microsoft. I doubt Perens will agree with much of what I write here.

Even so, the OSI--and open source more broadly--would do well to incorporate the various, opposing biases that make for real debate...and better results. OSI President Michael Tiemann calls out others' bias without seeming to recognize just how helpful it would be to have that bias represented at the table.

Less group think, in other words, and more group debate. This is what open source needs. It would be wonderful to have it start at the top with the OSI.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[royrusso]

Matt,

You may want to explain how the OSI is relevant. I'm not alone in pondering that question for years.

[daveshax]

On a similar topic, I've always thought free software people who use GPL licenses are a bit hypocritical.

They want free software, but require any software that uses it to be under the same licence? That's a restriction! Which, ergo, makes it 'not free'.
Free isn't just about cost, Microsoft's OSP is more 'free' than that.

GPL is more like a clever marketing scheme than a license.

[hozelda]

Have you looked at Microsoft's range of EULA's and other licenses used in their products? Talk about restrictions. Of course a monopolist who knows how to optimize their take from society likes licenses like the BSD because it means access to code written on others' dime.

The GPL is about getting more openness of code to help create level playing fields for contributors and conditions which benefit the users. The only real restrictions are to prevent abuse and predation.

You might be surprised to learn about everything you can do with the Linux kernel (the rights you have as a user) vs. what you can do with Windows.

[dmartindotorg]

This seems to imply that somehow corporate viewpoints are needed and helpful. I've spent my career developing enterprise software for huge companies. And I can say, hands down, that corporations have no business being involved in open source steering. They make their own IT like walking uphill in hip-deep mud with an excessive, cathartic conservatism that makes IT more expensive, not less, and often promotes nay-sayers and technical illiterate people to the top.

If the OSI involved those groups, would the bright technical minds of the world be involved? No, the MBAs and the so-called "architects" (aka, the nay-sayers) would be the ones representing those interests.

You act like the idealism of open source is new. The idealists of the world are the ones who formed this movement and drove it to what it is today. Now that its popular I'm not on board with trying to take that leadership away.

[kast5089]

Matt, I agree with you in principle. I think the commercialization of open source is healthy and I often promote a more balanced view of open source to some of the die-hards I mingle with. Even so, I can't recommend placing those with major corporate interests on the board of the OSI. Talk about having the wolf guarding the hen-house.

Besides, the strength of open source lies in the grassroots, not in the OSI or any other person or organization claiming to represent it (including Stallman and his cronies). Placing Microsoft, Oracle, or any other corporation at the table would do nothing but cause the organization to lose credibility. Commercialized open source works well, but I doubt it would work if its primary goal were profit.

[MMcCubbing]

I think a balanced membership of corporate and grassroots representative would do the movement some good. They would have to be careful to ensure that the corporate interests do not override those of the grassroots.

Although I believe that, in such a situation, those in the grassroots would, as is nature, create a new, alternative group starting a 'new' grassroots movement to oppose the, then commercialized, OSI. But that is just my theory, I could be wrong.

I am in total agreement on the fact that extremism is wrong - but this does not imply that open source communities are the only one that falls in this extreme. I had my share of "communist" or "you only hate Microsoft" (something that really amuses me, as I usually don't write about them), and despite this I have no interest in claiming that the proprietary software community should intervene to moderate the extremists in there. I simply understand that there are nuts everywhere.
As for your middle phrase: "a portion of which is on display in the comments to any of my posts that discuss such horrifying ideas as "Open Core" (gasp!), Microsoft as a bona fide open-source player (yikes!), or, really, anything that fails to discuss knighthood and/or sainthood for Richard Stallman." you do a disservice to all the people (the majority, in my view) that have no interest in the sainthood of Stallman, but work as researchers or as part of the business world and at the same time may disagree with you on merit (like how to approach Microsoft, or about Open Core).
By throwing everything together, you simply disregard criticism as the result of a poorly misguided faith in Stallman (or something similar). As an example, I may criticize "open core" as implemented by some companies because I believe that in some cases it is just a thinly veiled "shareware" model, that loses all the advantages of what OS can bring (I mentioned in one of my last posts several open core examples done right, including yours). And about Microsoft, I believe that some of the actions they did in the past were negative for their reputation and image, and many still believe that it's difficult to trust them - again, there is no need to be a Stallmanite for this.

[dsterry]

The term "open source" was coined to make free (free-as-in-freedom) software as a product more palatable to businesses. The theory was that businesses don't like the word free. It's a taboo word.

Since the word has two meanings that we're constantly bumping up against I'd like to see which of these two meanings might put the word off limits in the business world.

Free as in gratis or zero cost: This meaning is used widely in business. For example, you can get free samples and free trials. Sometimes you can get a free item when you purchase something else. This kind of free works for business because the free thing gets you thinking about or trying a product or service that you will eventually pay for. Free stuff entices you to become a customer. Free is a sales tool.

The other meaning, free as in liberty or free-will allows for many more possibilities. Imagine I'm trying to sell you a product. I want to get you thinking about all the ways this product will help you. I want you to think about this product being the best to suit your needs. I want you to sign on the dotted line and come away from the entire transaction thinking you made the right decision. After all, it was the only reasonable choice given your circumstances. Nowhere in that train of thought did I mention that you have freedom. I guess I'm just old fashioned ;)

Freedom costs sales. The more chances you give someone to click away, say no or make a choice, in other words to exercise freedom, the less sales you're going to make. It's just probability.

But what if freedom becomes an important value in the transaction? What if the product or service only makes sense in the context of constant choice and competition? This is where we find ourselves with software. It is utterly ridiculous to run your business on software for which another company holds the source code. That company can go out of business, be purchased by your competitor, or worse, become unresponsive. At that point the system they suppported may become slow and dated at best, and completely down and useless at worst. Sure you have a contract and you can sue but in the mean time, your business might be severely handicapped, losing customers of your own.

As a "free software extremist" my goal is to re-introduce the idea of freedom as an important component of an ethical and efficient business. Your employees should work for you because you work for them. Your clients should work with you because you work with them. These ideas are more than aesthetically pleasing. They'll lead to the best and brightest businesses time and time again.

Clearly both meanings of the word free can help a business. Offer free stuff to entice new customers and develop relationships of mutual respect with your clients and your employees by championing their freedom.

I feel satisfied that I've made my point. You are now free to make yours.

[Urban Terrorist]

Mat,

I agree with Bruce, there should not be business involvement. This is a community issue, and a community is made up of individuals. A business is not an individual. This does not mean that businesses shouldn't be able to use Free Software, just that they should not be involved in the governance of the movement.

And note that I use the term "free software" and not "open source."

[The_Decider]

I agree. Keeping corporations out of the Apache Foundation is one of the things that makes it so damn good at what it does. People and ideas drive it, and that is how it should be.

[ushimitsudoki]

The premise of this piece is so flawed its redonkulous.

Constancy? In the Open Source movement? Ha. Have you seen the number of "Open Source" licenses? Missed the GPL v. BSD question? The GPLv2 v GPLv3 question? The Novell is good/bad question Pick any topic in FLOSS and there is debate on it.

The FLOSS community is absolutely *overflowing* with debate and various opinions. The base is already so wide we can't even agree on what to call the community as a whole - what the heck exactly are corporate interests going to bring of value to the community?

And letting Microsoft on the board? Uighur, please.

[admoore]

You seem to be going the long way 'round to just say that some people are closed minded and need to open up. For all the book quotes and so forth, that's the bottom line of what you're at.

Funny thing about open-mindedness is that people who talk about it are rarely truly interested in open-mindedness. They're more often people who hold a minority opinion and realize that convincing the majority to be more "open minded" is the only way to get their idealogical foot in the door. If the tables were turned, how much interest would you have in hearing a diversity of voices in the debate? Accusations of "extremism" and patronization of GPL supporters suggest to me that it wouldn't be much.

[Papa Chango]

Ive worked on Free Software for over a decade and not once have I cared what the OSI does so this will be one more thing I wont care about.
I pick the A/L/GPL because I believe that whole 'standing on teh shoulders of giants' stuff. I like the idea that my work could benefit others down the line and so on and so on. As a son of a research scientist, the idea of collaboration with one's peers was always engrained in me.
And no, I dont have problems wtih IBM or Intel employees working on the same projects because they follow the same rules as the college kids working with us.

There is no 'community', there are hundreds of communities in free software which have little do with each other so I can see the OSI wanting to corral them for the benefit of business, just as I can see developers give the OSI the middle finger. Do kernel developers have much in common with KDE theme specialists? Do people working on some notetaking apps have anything to do with people working on KDEnlive video editing software?
We all work on free software projects and some might be close to others and have rapport while others dont. So this community thing is bogus. But I understand why business wants to corrall them in.
And yes, if you are going to claim some kind of ownership of 'community', then there needs to be a HEAVY representation of developers AND users on the board.

As for open source, its the perfect example of corraling for the benefits of business that does nothing for us. BSD is a fine license for some but I have no use for it and even Redmond got their own MS-PL license so they can now claim that theyre 'open' so the term open source is really even more meaningless. Some people didnt like the name 'free software' and they changed it for us. Really? And Im just supposed to go along with it and revel in the confusion? No thanks. You might try to insult me by calling me an extremist (and I can call you a sellout) but the fact remains, Im doing the same thing I was 15 years ago, writing the same code and nothing has changed except how YOU want me to call myself because it doesnt suit some people. The word you are looking here is orthodiox, not extremist.
But of course, you dont get to fan the flames as much with your title.

More debate? Oh god no!!! Please, we have enough of them. Name me one other OS that has as many debates as we have. Some of us actually work for a living on top of working on free software, so debates are left for the self serving demagogues in various self appointed foundattion, organizations and groups.

As for having MS on the board? Pass the bong Asay, I want some of your stuff.
You can have them participate if you want WITHOUT having them be a member of the board but the past 15, 10, 5, 2 years have shown us what Microsoft thinks of us (Im still waiting for my bill since Ballmer claimed about 12-8 months ago that Red Hat USERS owe MS money because Linux has stolen their IP). Like with teh mob, you keep your friends close and your enemies even closer, I get it.
Except you dont give a chronic criminal the keys to the house and your PIN number.

Cmon, be original if youre going to try to get people riled up.
Do some topics that have neeeeeeeever been done before.... like KDE vs Gnome or Alsa vs Pulse, binary blobs or not...

[Aus_Engineer]

Good article, and very accurate. It's clear FOSS is riddled with extremeist views, its everywhere you go in the FOSS community and you certainly are EVIL if you are not part of the cult.

Group Dynamics are alive and strong in the FOSS world.

Go onto any of the FOSS chat rooms or web sites and offer a balanced and unbiased view and you'll be shot down every time.

I laugh at #boycottnovell IRC someone posts they would like to Kill steve Balmer by throwing a grenada at him, when someone comments about how in appropriate that is, THAT person is /kicked from the IRC channel, but not the person who is happy to kill (blow up) someone he has never met and does not know.

Just because he's from Microsoft. that is extremism and its re-inforced by applauding the person who wants to kill and kicking the one who says thats not right !!.

Extremism is very dangerous and it has certainly overtaken FOSS.