Does Open Source Still Hold the Magic?

In his essays, Eric S. Raymond (ESR) talks about open source economics, and his ideas still hold up today. The rise of open-source software often seems like magic: high-quality tools available for free, built by communities instead of big corporations. The concept of open source can feel almost too good to be true—how can such amazing software be available without a price tag? But can this model really last in a competitive world, where resources are scarce and companies need to make a profit?

Services, Not Software

ESR argues that the real value isn’t in the software itself but in the services around it. Instead of selling proprietary software, open source focuses on things like customization, support, and integration. The rise of Linux distributions like Red Hat showed this shift—it’s not about selling the software, it’s about providing the services that make it useful. Red Hat figured out that businesses were willing to pay for the support and reliability that came with their expertise, even though the core software was available for free.

Nowadays, with the cloud, companies like Amazon and Google are all about open-source software, offering services that are hard to match without their scale. It’s less about selling software and more about offering compute power, storage, and tools for developers. Open source is often at the foundation of these services—think of Kubernetes, which started as an open-source project and is now the backbone of countless cloud services.

Rent vs. Peer Review

ESR talks about the trade-off between making money from proprietary software (collecting “rent”) and encouraging innovation through open-source peer review. Proprietary software allows companies to make money from their “secret sauce,” while open source encourages transparency and collaboration. This trade-off is at the core of the open-source debate—should software be closed off to make money, or should it be open to foster community involvement and innovation?

Key infrastructure like Linux, Kubernetes, and Apache shows how valuable open-source peer review can be, creating reliable foundations that everyone can trust. When many eyes are on a piece of software, it becomes stronger, more secure, and more resilient. This is one of the biggest advantages of open source—anyone can contribute to improving the software, leading to rapid innovation and problem-solving.

However, proprietary software still has its place, especially when unique solutions provide specific value that people are willing to pay for, like Adobe’s Creative Suite or specialized engineering tools. In those cases, companies charge for access to fund ongoing development and provide features that are tailored to specific needs. The proprietary model allows these companies to maintain control over their software, ensuring consistent quality and a steady revenue stream.

The challenge for open source is finding that balance—encouraging collaboration and openness while also ensuring that developers and contributors are rewarded for their work. This is where different funding models, like donations, sponsorships, and service fees, come into play. The goal is to make sure that the people who are putting in the effort to build and maintain open-source software are compensated fairly.

The Rise of “Open Core”

The “open core” model—where the basic software is open, but advanced features are kept proprietary—blurs the line between open and closed source. It’s a way for companies to stay sustainable, giving back to the community while also making a profit. By offering a core version of the software for free, companies can build a user base and encourage community contributions, while still reserving premium features for paying customers. This model provides a way to balance openness with sustainability, but it’s not without its challenges.

Open core can also frustrate community members who want everything to be open. Some see it as a compromise that goes against the spirit of open source, while others view it as a practical solution to ensure long-term viability. Plus, there’s the question of whether big service providers should contribute more if they’re profiting from open-source projects. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft use open-source software to power their infrastructure, but they don’t always contribute back in proportion to the benefits they receive. This has led to debates about how to ensure that the companies benefiting the most from open source are also giving back to sustain the ecosystem.

The Future of the Cauldron

So, is the “magic cauldron” of open source still powerful? Open source still makes business sense, but the landscape is changing. The economics of open source have evolved, and new licensing, funding models, and community-backed platforms like GitHub Sponsors are helping keep things going. Projects are experimenting with new ways to ensure sustainability, from dual licensing to contributor agreements that encourage companies to support the projects they rely on.

The magic of open source isn’t gone—it’s just evolving. Community-driven collaboration and transparency are still strong forces, but keeping the magic alive means adapting—balancing openness, sustainability, and the need to make a living. It also means being open to new ideas and approaches that can help sustain the movement in a rapidly changing world. The spirit of open source—sharing, collaboration, and collective problem-solving—remains as relevant as ever, but it needs to adapt to the realities of today’s technology landscape.

In the end, the magic of open source comes from the people who believe in it and contribute to it. Whether through writing code, providing support, or simply using and advocating for open-source tools, every contribution helps keep the magic alive. The challenge now is to ensure that this model can continue to thrive, providing value to everyone involved and keeping the spirit of openness and collaboration at the heart of technology.