How to play the open game in the present and future economy

This is the fifth draft; it will evolve based on your feedback.
First published on 6/19/12. Last modified on Oct 10, 2024.

Come back later for more...  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More and more solutions to our problems today come in the form of open artifacts, i.e open source software and hardware, created by online communities and networks. Traditionally, most of these communities have relied on voluntary participation or some type of gift economy, i.e. the developers do not expect a direct or immediate tangible reward for their contributions. These open artifacts have been regarded as marginal, mostly intended for amateurs and hobbyists. How can one expect serious things to come out from loose organizations that don't use the prescribed governance and methodologies, and don't have access to large budgets? At least that was the unadvised belief, until we realized that critical infrastructure, like the Internet, runs mostly on open source software, created and maintained by these unorthodox organizations. The helicopter drone, Ingenuity, which is part of the Perseverance mission to the planet Mars, operates on Linux, which is an open source operating system. Bitcoin, runs on open source software and is maintained by an open group of people, who can be practically anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. Since the launch in 2009, no one has succeeded in hacking Bitcoin, despite the astronomical reward, ranging in the tens of billions of dollars, if we only consider the abandoned accounts of Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the network. So some open artifacts developed by unorthodox organizations are pretty serious. There are also lots of crappy ones, as there are crappy products offered by serious companies.

Developing open artifacts (based on open source technologies) relying on unorthodox organizations and being able to make a living is what I call playing the open game.

There are a few important components to the open game... 

 

First, there's the nature of the solution, or more precisely, its intellectual property regime. Open source means that no one can create a temporary economic monopoly on a particular solution, as it is the case with products based on patented technologies. The immediate reaction of some people is: how can one make money developing open source technologies. My first reaction to this question is to point to the obvious: 

• IBM has invested billions of US dollars in Linux and other open source technologies. ref
• Google has gained mobile dominance by opening Android, the mobile operating system. 
• Tesla has engaged in a hybrid IP strategy, open source patented.  

It is obviously possible to generate wealth while developing open source technologies, if the business model is not simple and linear. Then one can dive into some examples to understand the second order and even the third order positive effects on the overall business. In other words, in most cases, whatever is open source is not the product, but by open sourcing some technology in the IP portfolio, these companies produce some effects within their ecosystem, which they can harvest or leverage for their core business. In the case of Google, opening Android increased its adoption rate, while propagating some core Google functionalities, thus putting Google services in billions of mobile devices, which then could be monetized using Google's core business model. We also see a second order kickback pattern with online services like Google and Facebook for example, where free access is given to a digital service (search or connecting and interacting with people), while making money from selling users' generated data or attention. So we need to stop thinking about business as a simple and linear process, product-exchange. 

Now, the previous examples are easier to understand for most people, since they can relate the story to their own work experience. But what about people who develop Tiki for example, an open source wiki CMS groupware? The model here is most probably less known by commons people, but it is the best known by those who use open source technologies. The wealth generation model is similar to Red Hat, the poster child, based on support, training, and consulting services around the core open artifact, which is offered for free. 

 

At this point, I find that is it important to raise to your awareness the fact that the wealth generation model is not the same when the technology is software or hardware. It is beyond the scope of this post to dive deeper into this distinction, but if you're interested, we can discuss in the comments.

We can go even further into more esoteric wealth generation models, some of which are not even well understood by people who participate in the development of open source technologies. You have probably vaguely sensed by know that I deliberately use the term open artifact instead of product and the expression wealth generation instead of business model. The reason for that is to avoid, as much as possible, what I call cognitive interference. When we say product people think about commodity, something that you can buy/sell on the market. But you cannot sell the Linux operating system, because the open source license gives the right to anyone to make a copy, use and modify. In this IP regime, it becomes an abundant, non-rivalrous resource, like the air that we breath. One cannot sell it, its price is zero according to the law of supply and demand. Even though, unlike the air, we need to deploy efforts to produce functional software, once it is made, its costs of reproduction (copy/paste) and distribution (download) are negligible. This is not the same for open source hardware, which has higher costs for reproduction and distribution. But since everyone has access to the design, anyone can make it too. I also like to say that open artifacts disseminate, they are not distributed as products through the market. In other words, software can be found online and downloaded by people and in the case of hardware, anyone can download the model and make it themselves, which has become much easier nowadays, with the use of digital fabrication techniques (3D printing, CNC, etc.). So what about the expression wealth generation? When we say wealth most people think about money and I want to avoid this association. In more esoteric models, people are seeking other forms of wealth, for what they are, or for a later transmutation into money. For example, someone may want to contribute to an open source project to learn new skills, to develop new relations with people that have specific skills or share specific values, or to build reputation.

 

 

The second component of the open game story is the type of organization that produces the open artifact.

...

 

 

Recently, we have witnessed the emergence of new economic models that brake away from the gift economy, directly rewarding those who contribute (with time, financial capital, social capital, ...) to open projects. The open artifact is gradually becoming sustainable. The first step in this direction can be illustrated by Open Source Ecology, which designs open hardware for farming, construction and manufacturing. The designs are  entirely open and free, but the Open Source Ecology community is not interested in commodification, i.e. market exchanges, their designs made with DIY (Do It Yourself) in mind, destined to be produced by the user, or very close to the point of use. In the case of Open Source Ecology their model for subsistence is based on revenues in fiat currency, from donations or educational services.

Open crowdsourcing is another model in which designers, part of an (open) community, are rewarded to complete a project. This scheme doesn't only rely on donations or voluntary participation, since those who contribute are rewarded in exchange with some symbolic gifts (tokens of recognition), reputation tokens, job opportunities, etc. Arduino is an example of such model, a hybrid between the open (value) network OVN and a traditional business, which relies on a vast community of enthusiasts to propose new designs, find and eliminate bugs, engage in promotion, etc. 

There are also closed and non-transparent crowdsourcing initiatives, such as prizes, in which only the best contributors are rewarded. Contributors are often placed in competition against each other. The resultant designs or artifacts are closed and remain under the control of the initiator. We are definitely against this new form of human exploitation, as you can see in this post. 

Sensorica is based on a more radical model, referred to as an open value network (OVN), which implements commons-based peer design production. It is in fact a mix between a gift economy and a transaction-based, or market economy. Sensorica can produces open artifacts that can either be exchange on the market or disseminated as DIY open designs. Various forms of rewards (including revenue from market exchanges or donations) are redistributed to all contributors in proportion to their contributions, based on a Benefit Redistribution Algorithm, which is at the heart of the Network Resource Planning and Contribution Accounting system (NRP-CAS).