A story about the late Oracle co-CEO, Mark Hurd, who passed away last week at the young age of 62.
It’s somewhere in May 2008, Düsseldorf, on the last day of a huge, week-long tradeshow where HP (where I worked 2006-2014) had a massive presence. All staff (about 50 in sales, marketing), tired, hungover, very cynical are summoned to the booth for 7am (!) to hear the new-ish CEO speak.
At this point, everyone expects some generic pep talk full of corporate Americanisms. The figure that steps in, with reading glasses at the end of his nose, in khakis and a blue blazer, looks like a cross between accountant and American football quarterback—fitting our very low expectations.
He takes the mic, looks at his notes, says good morning, and says that he wants us to do one thing today, and one thing only. He pauses, looks up, drops his notes.
To everyone’s pre-caffeine shock, he starts shouting “I want you to sell, I want you to kill the competition today, kick their asses, don’t leave any opening” he goes on and on. I look around and see some of the most experienced, cynical sales people I’ve ever know smiling like kids, on their feet, shouting back in encouragement.
I’ve been in the military and I’ve been in field business roles and I’ve never seen this kind of instant transformation, and a crew as motivated and focused as the HP booth staff that day. Proper Henry V moment.
I’m sure everyone who worked for Hurd has informed/uninformed good/bad opinions of how he was as manager, exec, CEO, but he’s gone now, so what we have our stories.
Visitors of Open Core Summit in San Francisco in mid-September could be forgiven for their confusion: on the one hand, discussions at the conference centered around business and community models for open source software (OSS) viability, in an increasingly polarized Cloud world.
On the other hand, tweetstorms by key figures in the community (who were notably absent) focused on the very definition of open source, disagreeing with the association of open source with open core, source available and other limiting models. One of the attendees (disclaimer: a colleagure of mine) put it succinctly in a tweet that exposes the still-raging debates about the nature and direction of different models to the “left” of full-on proprietary software:
A Week Of Moral Reminders For Open Source
It was certainly fascinating that a conference which dealt in different approaches to protect or limit open source—many of them controversial—was book-ended by two seminal events in the OSS world. The first one occurred just prior to the conference, when the founder of the Free Software movement and GNU project, Richard M. Stallman, resigned from MIT and the Free Software Foundation (FSF), following public pressure pertaining to opinions he expressed in an email concerning the Jeffrey Epstein affair—software engineer Sarah Mei gave a detailed breakdown on Twitter of historical issues with misogyny at the FSF.
While the Stallman resignation could be seen as starting to fix a historical issue, the second event more clearly raised new questions for open source’s future.
After it came to light that Cloud company Chef signed a deal with the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE, who has been highlighted for its separation of families and night-time raids), developer Seth Vargo pulled a piece of open source technology that helps run Chef in production, claiming moral reasons.
Chef added kindling to the fire by forking the deprecated code, and renaming the author—viewed as a hostile tactic towards community norms. Chef likely needs to fulfil its contractual obligations to a demanding federal customer, but has since back-tracked on the author renaming, and has gone public on its next steps for remediation.
Free Software: Free For Any Purpose?
Much of the Twitter criticism around the Open Core Summit re-emphasized the agreed principle that if you’re writing OSS, you should be comfortable with anyone re-using or modifying such software freely, per the Four Freedoms—even if it means that AWS sells a managed service based on a project, which could limit the growth of the commercial entity supporting it, and with it the project’s viability itself (I covered this in my earlier post).
However, an extension of that question could pertain to the uses of software for purposes which might disagree with the maintainers’ values. The Four Freedoms as defined today do not speak to someone using free software to infringe on non-software freedoms—but some are now calling for this to be a formal part of free software licenses. A few licenses already include such clauses, but due to numerous gray areas, this is tricky to navigate—some entities (CIA) enjoy less scrutiny than others (ICE); judgment on some issues can be based on one’s background (China-Taiwan, Israel-Palestine, Spain-Catalonia); and so on. Even if almost all involved see the use as evil, how does one prove that a server in a North Korean labor camp runs Kubernetes, for example? How does a project enforce its policy in such a case?
As more developers bring their values to work, this will be a critical development for open source, software in general, and technology. Developer Matthew Garrett positioned this well, claiming that solving this through licenses could be effective but not in line with principles of free software and open source. Likewise, Risk Engineer Aditya Mukerjee gave a great summary of where this could quickly get complicated:
Acquia’s “Makers And Takers”
In this context it was useful to talk to Acquia founder and Drupal Project lead Dries Buytaert, just after the Summit (he had to cancel his attendance there to close an investment round in the company from Vista Equity Partners).
In a long and impassioned blog post, Buytaert used the “makers vs. takers” model to argue that failure (by all stakeholders) to embrace the collaborative culture of the OSS community is the most real and damaging issue facing it. Operating an open source community and business is hard, claims Buytaert, and ultimately every community is set up differently. Acquia, he says, maintains the Drupal project but contributes only 5% of code commits, which ensures open collaboration—compared with other vendors who might opt for more control strategic of their projects’ direction at the expense of collaboration.
An example of this, says Buytaert, is a model by which open source vendors that ensure they receive “selective benefits” from their work. Automattic in the WordPress community controls the WordPress.com domain; Mozilla Corporation, the for-profit subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, are paid large sums from Google for searches done through the Firefox search bar; MongoDB owns the copyright to its own code and is able to change MongoDB’s license in order to fend off competitors.
From Cloud Vs. Community To Government Vs. Community?
Still, Buytaert agrees that there is a degree of threat from large, well-funded companies that “refuse to meaningfully contribute, and take more than they give.” However, first, it’s important to understand and respect that some companies can contribute more than others; and second, it’s important that the OSS community encourages and incentivizes them to do so, and the best way, says Buytaert, is to create a situation where the more you invest in open source, the more you win commercially. If the opposite is true, it will be hard to sustain.
Buytaert suggests that the big cloud players could give back by rewarding their developers for contributing to open source projects during work hours, or by having their marketing team help promote the open source project—in return they will get more skilled and better connected engineers.
As Pivotal’s Eli Aleyner suggested in his talk at the Summit about working with public clouds, today’s developers are tomorrow’s technology buyers, and any potential short term gains for a cloud provider from not playing nice with an open source project could be dwarfed by the commercial damage resulting from alienating the community.
If the Chef precedent is an example, this principle now very clearly includes government entities, and so it will be interesting to see how software use evolves as communities get more opinionated about the end use of their software.