openSUSE considers governance options

Please consider subscribing to LWN Subscriptions are the lifeblood of LWN.net. If you appreciate this content and would like to see more of it, your subscription will help to ensure that LWN continues to thrive. Please visit this page to join up and keep LWN on the net.

The relationship between SUSE and the openSUSE community is currently under discussion as the community considers different options for how it wants to be organized and governed in the future. Among the options under consideration is the possibility of openSUSE setting up an entirely independent foundation, as it seeks greater autonomy and control over its own future and operations.

The concerns that have led to the discussions have been ongoing for several months and were highlighted in an openSUSE board meeting held on April 2 and in a followup meeting on April 16. The issue is also set to be a primary topic of discussion at the board meeting to be held during the upcoming openSUSE conference 2019. SUSE itself has been in a state of transition, recently spinning out from MicroFocus to become an independent company with the backing of private equity from EQT. Both openSUSE board chair Richard Brown and SUSE leadership have publicly reiterated that SUSE remains committed to openSUSE. The concerns however have to do with the ability of openSUSE to be able to operate in a sustainable way without being entirely beholden to SUSE.

Why separate?

There are a number of different factors driving the move toward the possibility of an independent foundation for openSUSE. Though SUSE has publicly affirmed its commitment to openSUSE, there is still a risk that this position could change in the future. SUSE has, after all, known lots of change throughout its existence. It was founded in 1992 and was first acquired by Novell in 2003 for $210 million. In 2011, Novell was acquired by Attachmate for $2.2 billion, and in 2014 Attachmate was acquired by MicroFocus for $2.34 billion. The acquisition by EQT, which closed in March 2019, might not necessarily be the last time there is an ownership change either. It's a future risk that has openSUSE Board member Simon Lees somewhat concerned:

On the other hand given EQT's business model it is almost certain that at some point in the future SUSE will be sold again or publicly listed, and given the current good working relationship between SUSE and openSUSE it is likely easier to have such discussions now vs in the future should someone buy SUSE and install new management that doesn't value openSUSE in the same way the current management does.

The idea of an independent openSUSE foundation has popped up before. As recently as July 2018, there was a thread on the openSUSE mailing list about the idea in the immediate aftermath of the EQT acquisition announcement. "Every time, SUSE has changed ownership, this kind of discussion pops up with some mild paranoia IMO, about SUSE dropping or weakening support for openSUSE", former openSUSE board member Peter Linnell wrote. In the past this discussion has died down with no changes made; it remains to be seen whether things will be different this time around.

In an interview with LWN, Brown characterized the conversations with SUSE and the broader community about the possibility of an independent foundation as being frank, ongoing, and healthy. He explained that the different constituents, be it SUSE or the community, have their own take on the issue of an independent openSUSE. As to what the options are, Brown said that everything is on the table. That means everything from a full independent openSUSE foundation to a tweaking of the current relationship that provides more legal autonomy for openSUSE. The potential for some form of organization to be run under the auspices of the Linux Foundation is also among the options.

During the April 16 openSUSE board meeting there was a discussion about different models that could be considered. One is to have a similar approach to The Document Foundation, which supports the LibreOffice suite. Another option discussed in the meeting is joining a group like Software in the Public Interest, which acts as an umbrella sponsor for several open-source efforts, including Debian. Brown was noncommittal as to what the actual outcome of the discussions will be. "I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is a combination of options or neither," he said.

Concerns

Among the issues fueling the drive for more independence that that have been publicly discussed in openSUSE mailing lists, and by Brown in conversation with LWN, is funding. "OpenSUSE has multiple stakeholders, but it currently doesn't have a separate legal entity of its own, which makes some of the practicalities of having multiple sponsors rather complicated," Brown told LWN. The ability to directly handle financial contributions is a key challenge under the current arrangement. Brown added that in some cases sponsors just do things on their own to help openSUSE with little or no formal agreement. "Clearing up the complexity of sponsorship is part of the motivation behind all this," Brown added.

In the mailing list thread, Lees also provided some insight into the challenges of the current funding situation:

If we choose not to proceed with an openSUSE foundation and our relationship with SUSE stays the same we will likely consider partnering with an umbrella org as a secondary way of receiving funds as there are some times and places where our current approach of everything having to go through SUSE does cause us some issues.

Sponsorship and the ability to raise funding is critical to help enable openSUSE's project infrastructure. In this message Brown commented that "openSUSE is in continual need of investment in terms of both hardware and manpower to 'keep the lights on' with it's current infrastructure". The challenge is that while openSUSE as a project can easily accept code contributions from developers, the same is not true when it comes to contributions of hardware and services. As a result, even if an organization wanted to donate infrastructure to openSUSE, it's not something that can easily be accommodated since openSUSE has no legal entity to take ownership of the hardware infrastructure.

Contributions can be directed to SUSE, but that has complications of its own. "I believe many companies would be far more comfortable donating to an independent charitable body than having to sign over their hardware or services to a commercial entity such as SUSE", Brown wrote.

Another key concern has to do with products. Brown warned in the above-linked message that there isn't always a productive collaboration between the community and the company across all SUSE products. In particular, he cited issues with the openSUSE Kubic and SUSE Container-as-a-Service Platform efforts:

Sadly, there have been times working on Kubic I have been requested by SUSE to say publicly things and act in a way which I feel would have compromised not only SUSE & openSUSE's best interests, but also my personal responsibility to always act in a truthful manner when interacting with fellow openSUSE contributors and our upstreams. I will not air dirty laundry in detail here, but needless to say, my faith in SUSE's ability to always do the right thing has been shaken.

With a more distinctly separate openSUSE, the implication and the hope is that openSUSE projects will have increased autonomy over its governance and interaction with the wider community.

No hard deadline

While different models for openSUSE's governance are under consideration, Brown is adamant that he is not in favor of an arrangement like what Fedora has with Red Hat. Fedora is a community Linux distribution that Red Hat supports, and it has a limited degree of autonomy. "The current relationship between SUSE and openSUSE is unique and special, and I see these discussions as enhancing that, and not necessarily following anyone else's direction," Brown said.

Further conversations will be had about the governance and operational model for openSUSE at the annual openSUSE board meeting. While there will be board and community-level discussions, there is no hard deadline in place for any change to occur at this point in time. "There is no real time pressure on this from any side right now, this is really an organic growth thing," Brown said.

