The perils of mixing open source and money

DHH argues that open source has thrived because it is shaped by social norms, not market ones. Asking for money can spend community goodwill, add rigid expectations, and turn collaborative work into transactional work.

He says external rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation, create resentment between projects, and push contributors toward more complex, consultant-like software. He uses Ruby on Rails as an example of the scale open source can reach when people contribute for free.

Reading notes

#

• Fundraising is easier now through venues like Kickstarter, so more open source projects ask for money.
• Goodwill earned by prolific open sourcerers can be spent once when they ask for money.
• Without direct pay, contributors are more likely to keep work simple and focus on the problem at hand.
• Once money is involved, work tends to expand to match the amount raised, which leads to a more rigid production plan.
• Asking to make a living from open source can force contributors to value stability over inspiration.
• Sharing work because one must can lead to consultant-ware, with needless complexity.
• Expected external rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation and turn peers into buyers and sellers.
• Selective funding can create discontent in other projects and lower their intrinsic motivation too.
• DHH says human nature includes a sense of justice that is disturbed when similar work gets different rewards.
• Open source’s success comes from social norms, and market norms can damage that ecosystem.
• Ruby on Rails is presented as a large example of free collaboration: more than 3,000 contributors and work worth hundreds of millions at market rates.