Capitalism ≠ philanthropy

Contrary to what some may say, that random open source project some guy in Nebraska has been thanklessly maintaining since 2003^[1] doesn't necessarily need to be a business, but it probably does need funding and support, especially if it's in an unsustainable state.

And yet when it comes down to making that random open source project sustainable, turning it into a business is often — sometimes even nonsensically — the most viable path.

But why, exactly? Well, the problem is our current incentive structures within the USA, both economic and cultural, aren't really built to sustain work that falls outside our traditional market forces. Capitalism isn't philanthropy — it rewards profit, not charity.

And yet open source is everywhere. It can be unsustainable, yet also ubiquitous. It powers trillion-dollar companies, keeps governments running, and forms the backbone of modern technology.

Unfortunately, to our own detriment, we've built a system that rewards extraction, not contribution. Open source gives freely, but free always comes at a cost — somebody's time and money. Businesses, developers, and users all benefit from open source, yet few have an incentive, economic or social, to charitably give back.

Contribution comes at a cost, too. But it shouldn't.

This cost-based thinking is why donation-based models so often fail to be sustainable, and why so many open source projects go the route of commercialization even when it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

If businesses view open source sustainability efforts as a charity, they won't donate if they don't have to. It's just the nature of capitalism — it doesn't end in philanthropy. And forcing businesses to donate to open source — i.e. a tax — isn't the right route either.

So how do we resolve that disconnect?

An archetype: the climate pledge.

Modern companies of all sizes commit to — and market! — their climate sustainability efforts, not because they're forced to, but because the social, economic, and policy incentives make such efforts an expected cost of doing business. It's still a cost, but not in the same way.

In some sectors, climate sustainability has even become a competitive advantage. It became a market force in and of itself:

• Reputation & social incentives: companies commit to climate sustainability to maintain goodwill — because adoption reached critical-mass and the market signaled its value. Could open source sustainability follow the same trajectory? If key players pledged support, would others follow?

• Economic incentives: businesses invest in climate sustainability because it reduces long-term risk. If funding open source can more clearly highlight improvements to supply-chain and infrastructure stability and security, or build procurement advantages, would more companies contribute?

• Policy incentives: governments shape incentives, and markets respond to them. Climate sustainability reached critical-mass not just through goodwill or through social pressure, but because tax breaks, grants, and procurement policies made it a competitive necessity. Can open source sustainability follow that path?

Climate pledges are voluntary, yet systematic and widespread. If open source pledging became industry standard, it wouldn't need coercion — a dark path divorced from open source values. Rather, pledging would simply be how responsible businesses operate. The new norm.

Climate pledges didn't happen overnight. Adoption reaching critical-mass required early adopters, shifting expectations, and clear benefits. Open source could follow the same path — if companies recognize contributing as a necessity, not just a charitable choice.

The solution to the open source sustainability problem isn't to go out and commercialize everything — open source should be, in a perfect world, distinct from commercialization. Rather, the solution is to make contributing back, in money and time, the new norm.

For that, philanthropy alone isn't enough —

We need a market force.

If climate pledges have taught us anything, it's that companies adapt when properly incentivized — and as more do, others follow, and once critical-mass has been reached, they do so even without all the prior incentives (though they still need some).

Stripe Climate is proof: businesses pledge 1-2% of revenue despite no tax deductions — arguably the original driving incentive — instead now driven purely by reputation and social incentives.

We need those driving incentives. But how do we get the ball rolling?

The one thing open source doesn't have is an 'easy button.'

For example, if we wanted Keygen to make a climate pledge — say 1% of revenue — it's as simple as flipping a switch in Stripe. But not so much when making an open source pledge.

What if we had Stripe Climate, but for open source? What if GitHub let you flip a switch to fund your dependencies? And what if you got tax breaks for that? What if we just made it easy?

In order to reach critical-mass, we need something — like an automated GitHub sponsorship switch — that pushes more maintainers to accept funding while creating a sense of missing out if they don't. And we also need something — e.g. social and policy incentives — to push the consumers to flip that switch.

(Maybe open source projects would be required to operate under a foundation or non-profit to qualify under the new policy incentives — I'm not sure, but it's worth discussing.)

Initiatives like the Open Source Pledge are a step in the right direction, as are automated funding platforms like thanks.dev. But I believe we can do even better. In fact, we must do better.

We've seen it work for climate pledges. The question is now —

How do we reach critical-mass for open source?

---

[1]: This is referencing the ubiquitous XKCD #2347.