In recent years, major players like Microsoft, Amazon and Google have increased their involvement in open source projects, providing both financial and technical support. More consistent contributions from big tech—whether in the form of people or resources—is exactly what the open source community needs. However, underdeveloped collaboration guidelines can lead to friction between large corporations and open source developers, which ultimately harms both parties. Friction jeopardizes tech companies’ ability to rely on open source for operations while leaving the open source community without the support it needs. To make their relationship more sustainable, both parties need to cultivate a greater level of trust, develop clear guidelines for collaboration, and prioritize community.
Big Tech Contributions: Moving From Cash to Collaboration
For years, major tech companies have used open source solutions in their tech stacks. But many open source developers—who receive little to no money for their work—have voiced concerns about companies that take more from the open source community than they give.
In many ways, big tech has answered the call. For example, Amazon recently passed IBM as the fifth-largest contributor to open source projects. Companies like IBM and Amazon have a vested interest in supporting these projects—if open source projects are understaffed and underfunded, the quality of the solutions suffers.
But many tech companies are grappling with an unstable financial environment, which makes hefty donations more difficult to justify. As a result, support from big tech often involves donations of their developers’ time. However, this is also challenging as tech companies like Twitter and Google continue to lay off the developers who were keeping many open source projects afloat.
Yet, even before recent layoffs, collaborations between big tech and open source teams were strained. There’s a natural power imbalance between a corporation like Amazon and the open source community, which includes members who contribute to these projects in their free time, sometimes for little or no pay. Big tech developers must juggle the interests of the open source team they’re collaborating with and their own employer—with little guidance on how to do so.
A lack of transparency and communication from big tech also puts open source developers in a tricky situation. Many developers need financial and personnel support but may not want to relinquish control of their solutions to an outside corporation.
To alleviate this tension, big tech needs to establish clear, mutually beneficial guidelines for open source collaboration that prioritizes sustainability.
Reconciling the Fraught History Between Big Tech and Open Source
Past tensions between big tech and the open source community can affect collaboration if left unaddressed. For example, Microsoft has become one of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel, but many open source teams still remember former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer calling Linux a “cancer” in 2001.
To overcome this tension, big tech companies need to clarify their intentions from the beginning of a project. They should disclose their reasons for selecting the project, the developers who will work on that project and how their contributions will look. Open source maintainers also have a role to play here. They must properly vet these companies and inquire about their prior open source experience and strategies before welcoming them into the fold.
One way to reduce the risk of power imbalances or other tension is by collaborating through a project like the Linux kernel. Google, IBM and many other corporations contribute toward Linux kernel, and this distribution of contributors creates a much more balanced playing field. Rather than one company assuming operational control, multiple companies play a small part in keeping the Linux kernel up and running.
The Benefits of an Open Source Program Office
While these guardrails certainly help, big tech companies also need to formalize their open source contribution processes. At Aiven, we’ve done this through our open source program office (OSPO), which helps us manage our relationships with the open source communities we rely on. OSPOs ensure organizations remain compliant with open source licensing and provide a foundation to expand their involvement with the community over time.
When developing an OSPO, tech companies should be intentional about how they measure success. The most obvious metrics relate to the work developers do—for example, the number of features delivered, the number of fixes and the number of projects they contributed to. But OSPOs should also measure how developers contribute to the community itself, not just the projects within it. For example, do developers review work from other developers in the community? Do they attend conferences, write blog posts and share knowledge with other developers?
Big tech leaders must place as much emphasis on community-building as they do the number of contributions developers make. If they don’t evaluate developers based on their engagement with the community, the developer is less likely to focus their efforts there, injecting toxicity into the communities they’re trying to support.
Open Source Thrives on Collaboration. Let’s Keep it That Way
The challenge of reducing the stress and burnout of open source developers can’t be solved solely through financial means. No amount of money will reduce the amount of work it takes to maintain an open source project.
To make collaborations between open source teams and big tech sustainable, both sides need to prioritize supporting the community above all else and develop guidelines that support this mission. More sustainable collaborations will ensure that the open source community gets the support it needs while big tech continues to reap the rewards of the community’s innovations.
