Open Source represents a new economic model. Whereas capitalism is based on controlling and monetizing access to capital (and service), Open Source gives free and open access to everyone. This open access is both a democratizing force (giving equal access gives equal power… in theory) and a huge economic boon as it reduces the overhead of paying for access thus reducing the bar to entry, stimulating innovation. What first drew me to Open Source was the idea that solving a problem once was way better than solving it many times, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Open Revolution by Rufus Pollock builds a very compelling argument for Open Source.

But Open Source has a built in dilemma, articulated well for example by Don Goodman-Wilson in the article Open Source is Broken. Basically, Open Source’s focus on free access of the consumer of the product (code, ideas, designs, data, etc.) comes at the cost of the producers. What this means is that, with few exceptions, open source is driven by free labour. Now we all benefit from this free labour (As Goodman-Wilson points out, some (private companies for example) benefit more than others) but there is a cost. This hurts the long term viability and sustainability of open source.

So what to do?

What if we looked at open source as a public good? It fits. It is something that the whole community benefits from, that everyone gets equal access to: both common qualities of public goods. Public goods are developed and maintained by public institutions. Governments are starting to take a much greater interest in open source, though in practice, even with directives to build open source (including the new Mandate Letter for the Minister of Digital Government), it still seems to be a secondary goal. But what if governments saw it as part of their responsibility to maintain Open Source, to treat it as Digital Public Infrastructure (blog coming soon). After all, when governments spend public dollars, it makes sense that what they spend it on should likewise become a public good (we the public paid for it after all). This would provide a much more sustainable model for Open Source.

As Digital Public Infrastructure, the Open Source products would serve as a common platform, a floor on which others could build and add value. The beauty of this is it means we can also bake into this floor other key values that governments strive to uphold. Things like accessibility, transparency and accountability could become standard.

Governments can do this by building Open Source themselves, investing in Open Source communities and by making Open Source a mandatory part of procurement contracts.

As exciting as this is (at least for me), it still doesn’t ultimately solve the money dilemma, it just moves the burden to governments who now must find the resources to support this new digital public infrastructure. A few thoughts on this. First, governments are already spending huge amounts of public money on digital infrastructure, so it’s a small step to insist the results need to be Open Source. Governments will also start to get the benefits of sharing Open Source with other governments, thus each saving money over all. Second, as a public good, we as a society all benefit through having free access, so if it increases costs though taxes that is a small price to pay for the benefits we all get.

But the third piece I actually think is key, and something government has been historically really bad at. The biggest beneficiaries of Open Source are not individuals but instead businesses who can leverage the free access to Open Source products to increase their profitability, through reduced overhead. Given this, it makes sense to me that some of this increased profit be reinvested into supporting the Open Source products that enabled it. Figuring out how to best and most fairly do this can be figured out with businesses whether it is some type of tax on the profit or investment pool towards R&D. I leave it to smarter minds than me to figure it out.

I think Open Source leads to a more efficient and democratic society, but only when producers are properly compensated. I think governments can and should play a key role in helping bring about this sustainable model. After all, isn’t that what governments are for, public benefit?