The Open-Source Society

This essay is a part of the Plan for Action series.

    The benefits of the open source movement are apparent and well-established in the world of software. A supermajority of the Internet runs on Linux, Apple products run on UNIX-based systems, and open source software has a significant place in every sphere that uses software at all.

    The idea of the "open source society," therefore, is to take the principles behind open source software, and extend them out to other areas.

OSS Economics

    The main question about expanding open source is the question of economics: given that certain types of information are expensive to attain at first, can we realistically "open source," say, medicine? Or the chemical industry?

    Conventionally, contributing information or technology meant either getting direct compensation up front, or getting a license on the technology so that you could be directly compensated over time. The main reason this works is because its a direct incentive for the contributor - make a contribution and you get paid.

    In an open-source approach, the "value proposition" of new technology shifts a bit. When many players are contributing, there is an additional value proposition, in which your contribution of free knowledge is an in-kind trade for all other contributions in the community. Instead of your direct contribution being compensated, your contribution establishes your status in a community, and that status has value that can be exchanged elsewhere. For example, in FLOSS software, a contributing developer to a project may be hired for a one-off customization, and compensated heavily for it. Alternatively, a foundation or other organization may sponsor development for the project.

    One interesting effect of this value proposition is that the value shifts from the contribution itself, to additional work done after contributing. This prevents a problem in licensing, in which people may be forced to line up and pay for a contribution that was made years ago, with no further value added.

    With these observations, we can see expanding the open source idea into other fields will require identifying a value proposition that will make open source viable in that field.

Non-software Information

    The first area for an OSS to expand, and arguably is happening already, is in the area of education and other non-software information. One working example of open source information would be images, and two active examples are Pixabay (which I rely on and contribute to) and Public Domain Pictures. In the general information area, there is Wikipedia, and the Internet itself, which one accesses through search engines. And of course, Stack Exchange's many Q&A sites are the go-to source of information for a wide variety of topics, though the most famous is programming.

Free/Ad-funded Content Model

    Given a variety of working examples, we can also see a variety of value propositions for the contributor. In Wikpedia's case, the donations and contributions are separated - admins may not get a marketable/financial reward, but they do get a non-marketable "status." One interesting side effect here is that this attracts a particular kind of person, and some of the accusations about political bias may stem from the fact the reward system Wikipedia offers. In the Stack Exchange case, they give users a contribution score based on how effectively they answer questions, and this in fact is marketable. This does bring out a large number of valuable answers, so valuable that some companies now consider a high Stack Exchange reputation as a qualification on a resume.

Donor-supported

    In the picture sharing cases, people may receive donations directly if they put up enough good content, a direct incentive. Large contributors may put marginal high-end photos on these sites as an alternative to Shutterstock or other royalty-based platforms. For small contributors, myself being one, the possibility of occasional donations + the opportunity to "give back" if you are a heavy user of the free pictures is enough to make it worthwhile to put a little extra effort into pictures so you can contribute.

Crypto-supported

    All of these models work, and I think that as we can continue to find ways to either establish expertise or monetize contributions open source will keep growing in this area. The Minds token is another example - if we can reward lasting contributions with crypto, I think the Minds concept, applied to a repository, could fuel the next generation of open source information exchange.

Hardware and devices

    Sotware and information are relatively easy to exchange because they can be copied and handed out many times through a server. Hardware, however, is not as easy to copy as electrons. And yet, there are some open source models in this space also.

The Hackerspace model

    The Hackerspaces, or in "nicer" terms, Makerspaces, are built around a membership model in which members pay a fee, and the fee they pay qualifies them to vote on the use of the collected membership fees. Here, for a relatively small contribution, you can gain access to large amounts of commercial equipment, and some organizations also provide training. While not fully "open source," this model does provide one common benefit in open source projects - small contributions added together for access to much more than one could acquire alone.

Unpatenting

    Also, one interesting intellectual contribution coming from the hackerspaces is that of some hackerspaces releasing designs for use by others. This might lead to the "copyleft" concept extending to patenting. In other words, independent researchers "unpatent" a technology by releasing it to the world as open source, thus making the pricing of that technology start out at commodity pricing, aka affordable pricing.

    The one challenge being faced in this space is improving communication, as there is no unified platform. Also, if a technology is very valuable, how do you encourage contribution? This is, IMO, the leading edge of the open source movement.

Why build the Open Source Society

    I think that open source delivers something that socialism promises, but in reality does not and cannot deliver. And that is the idea of making information and education available to all. Given the very voluntary nature of open source, this transition from gated access to information to open access to contributor communities can be achieved, paving the way to information and goods that are vastly more affordable, and possibly more fun to make, than currently.

    I further think that we have to appreciate the educative component of the open source movement. In a successful project, a wide variety of contributions are needed, and for this reason anyone can be a contributor. This encourages direct participation and learning-by-doing, which in my experience allows for someone to become employable in a much shorter time and for far less resources than conventional education.

    To emphasize the main idea again, the transition is from gated access to information to open access to contributor communities. This process is already happening, and we can make it mainstream.

Want to talk more about this? Check out the Debt Free Society group.