Open Source is not Altruism
Matt Trifiro
Open wins. Helping founders and investors build commercial open source companies.
Many of my peers mistakenly believe that open source is driven by altruism, volunteerism, and charitable giving.
This view has some historical validity. Open source, after all, descends from the free software movement. However, the traditional narrative of individual programmers donating their time and expertise for the greater good no longer captures the reality of today's open source ecosystem.
The modern open source landscape is heavily influenced by entrepreneurs, investors and corporate actors who view open source as a strategic asset, investing significant resources through direct contributions, funded maintainer positions, and corporate-backed foundations.
Major projects like Kubernetes, React, and TensorFlow are primarily maintained by full-time employees at large technology companies. Even smaller projects increasingly rely on corporate sponsorship through platforms like GitHub Sponsors or Open Collective. The "nights and weekends" contributor model has been largely superseded by professional developers, whose primary job responsibilities include open source maintenance.
Successful companies like Microsoft, Google, and Meta approach open source as a fundamental business strategy. Their investments in projects like .NET, Angular, and PyTorch aren't acts of charity – they're calculated moves to influence technical standards, attract top talent, and shape the future of critical technologies. These companies understand that meaningful open source participation creates tangible business value through ecosystem leadership, technical innovation, and market influence.
Core Infrastructure, Not Corporate Charity
Open source powers nearly every device and software program on the planet, yet it's still saddled with an outdated perception of being a charitable endeavor rather than a strategic business investment.
This fuels the misconception that open source participation is a form of corporate philanthropy—something companies do to "give back" to the community or fulfill social responsibility goals—rather than recognizing it as a crucial driver of innovation and competitive advantage.
When open source is viewed through a philanthropic lens, investment decisions become vulnerable to budget cuts during economic downturns, as charitable initiatives are often first to be scaled back. Companies may limit their participation to token contributions or surface-level engagement, missing opportunities for deeper strategic benefits. Even when organizations do maintain significant open source projects, they often struggle to secure resources because the initiatives are categorized alongside other corporate social responsibility efforts rather than core business investments.
Breaking Free from the Charitable Perception
Modern open source is a form of market-driven collaboration.
Simply put: It means independent entities, primarily motivated by their own economic interests, choose to work together because the benefits of cooperation exceed what they could achieve alone.
Open source, to be properly understood, must break free of its charitable perception. This shift in perspective is essential for organizations to fully capture the competitive advantages of open source.
领英推荐
Rather than justifying open source investment through the lens of "giving back," companies need to evaluate it against strategic business metrics like talent acquisition, market positioning, and technical leadership. It requires reframing how organizations think about and communicate open source value.
Competitors and Collaborators
Open source collaboration can act as a foundation for competition. By contributing to a shared pool of code and knowledge, companies can focus their resources on building unique features and optimizing for specific markets, rather than reinventing basic components. This allows collaborators to concentrate on true differentiation while benefiting from a common technological base.
The success of this model is evident in platforms like Android, which enables smartphone manufacturers to create distinct experiences, and Linux, which enables many companies to offer specialized versions of the operating system. Each company builds unique value on top of shared open source foundations, fostering a more competitive and innovative market.
Open Source is Rational Collaboration
Open source aligns with other successful collaborative models in the free market, such as standards organizations and patent pools, where companies recognize that cooperation, even among competitors, can lead to greater individual gains.
Patterns of rational collaboration can be seen across industries. Throughout the economy, we find sophisticated collaborative systems that follow similar principles. In each case, market participants recognize that establishing common foundations amplifies rather than diminishes their competitive advantages. These collaborations emerge not from altruism, but from careful calculation of long-term self-interest.
The sophistication of these systems varies considerably. Some, like patent pools, employ complex legal and financial mechanisms to balance cooperation and competition. Others, like industry standards bodies, rely more on consensus-building and shared governance. Yet, all of them demonstrate how competitors can systematically identify and isolate areas where collaboration creates more value than competition.
Modern collaboration patterns include:
Just as with open source, these market-driven collaborations emerge naturally when the structure of a problem makes cooperation more profitable than pure competition, even for entities that might otherwise prefer to operate independently. This creates stable, self-reinforcing systems that can persist and evolve without requiring altruistic motivation.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where I go into detail on each of these modern collaboration patterns and identify parallels with open source.
GTM Expert! Founder/CEO Full Throttle Falato Leads - 25 years of Enterprise Sales Experience - Lead Generation Automation, US Air Force Veteran, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Black Belt, Muay Thai, Saxophonist, Scuba Diver
9 小时前Matt, thanks for sharing! Any good events coming up for you or your team? I am hosting a live monthly roundtable every first Wednesday at 11am EST to trade tips and tricks on how to build effective revenue strategies. I would love to have you be one of my special guests! We will review topics such as: -LinkedIn Automation: Using Groups and Events as anchors -Email Automation: How to safely send thousands of emails and what the new Google and Yahoo mail limitations mean -How to use thought leadership and MasterMind events to drive top-of-funnel -Content Creation: What drives meetings to be booked, how to use ChatGPT and Gemini effectively Please join us by using this link to register: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/monthly-roundtablemastermind-revenue-generation-tips-and-tactics-tickets-1236618492199
“A bad system will beat a good person every time.” Let's work together to build better, safer, and more delightful systems for getting software to prod.
2 周Matteo Collina I feel like this would resonate with you...
Product Management Executive | Enterprise SaaS/IaaS, Data & AI
2 周Well written, Matt Trifiro.
onward and awkward
3 周I?enjoyed this well written piece, but I disagree. > the traditional narrative of individual programmers donating their time and expertise for the greater good no longer captures the reality of today's open source ecosystem. I can see this assessment, though it rejects the positive role hobbyists continue to play in just *messing* with stuff without regard or influence of entrepreneurs, investors, and corporate actors. The alternative explanation offered of > independent entities, primarily motivated by their own economic interests, choose to work together because the benefits of cooperation exceed what they could achieve alone misses out on both the fact that many people do act alone, and also do so without economic goals. In lieu of economic reasons, theirs might be ideological, social, emotional, or intellectual. Surely the open source tent is big enough to continue to include *them*, too. I recently published an annotated transcript of a talk, where I am "guilty" of labeling corporate open source participation of philanthropy, but do so as a way of providing an explanation for the license changes we've seen in recent years. https://pirsquared.org/blog/current-challenges-in-free-software-and-open-source-development.html
Great read, I would add a callout to organization such as HeroDevs or Only Dust who actively contribute to sustaining community-driven projects!