Open source, cognitive surplus, and precarity
19 March 2019
(edit 28 May 2019: fix some awkward or unclear sentences.)
Someone once remarked (paraphrased) that as long as there has been a scene, there have been people complaining that it is no longer the true scene. (citation needed)
Of course the open source scene is changing, but how much of that is the unavoidable transformation that a healthy scene goes through, and how much is fundamental?
The Free Software movement as we know it started
by capturing the tremendous cognitive surplus that
was just there for the taking from university students and
from employees of conventional, slothful corporations. Back in the
1980s and early 1990s, barriers to cooperation
were transactional: licensing and communications
technologies. Patches on a mailing list seem like
a high-overhead collaboration method today, but by
the standards of the time, diff(1), patch(1)
and Free command-line tools were transformational.
And of course the classic free software licenses
are practically zero-overhead for participants with
uncomplicated sharing or reciprocity goals.
So, all that cognitive surplus was just sitting there between classes or TPS Reports or whatever, and the software freedom scene was set up to capture it. Before long, Tim O'Reilly and friends branded it as a software business trend called Open Source, and the modern software business emerged.
Sounds great—why isn't it continuing to work like that? Two reasons.
Less cognitive surplus in the world
The kind of university experiences that include substantial cognitive surpluses are less widely available, because of increases in the cost of higher education and how those costs are allocated.
The work environment is better at capturing cognitive surplus.
Precarity is a thing. Compared to the early days of open source, the rent is too damn high.
Internet adoption by people with less "free" time
There's a whole complex privilege thread here, but the main point is that open source as we know it began when a lot of people who had a lot of free time got on the Internet. They (fine, fine, we) had the opportunity to participate in open source and other cognitive-surplus-capturing activities (such as MMORGs). Many new people joining are not coming in with the same economic and time advantages, even if they have access to the same or better creative and collaborative tools.
More competition to capture available cognitive surplus
Open source is no longer the only practical, low-overhead way to do collaborative projects. Now people can do
crowdfunding
gig sites
native app stores (mobile, Steam...)
software as a service
It's no longer a choice between low-overhead, low-incentivization (open source) or accepting high overhead if you want to get paid.
What next?
Open source advantages in transaction costs are still there. But people looking for open source contributors do have to realize that we're going to have to keep increasing the number of people who consider open source as a possible valuable use of their time (remuneration issues are blockers) or see open source lose contributors as we get stuck competing with more outlets for less already-unmonetized time and attention.
Bonus links
Someone's Going to Get Killed Charging Those E-Scooters
The Cloud and Open Source Powder Keg
7 Secondary Diseases that Kill Innovation: The Departments of No
Understanding LF's New “Community Bridge”
A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you
Spotify and Amazon ‘sue songwriters’ with appeal against 44% royalty rise in the United States
Fantasy’s widow: The fight over the legacy of Dungeons & Dragons
