Thoughts behind Open Source funding need to change if open source is to remain sustainable well into the future.

Open source software (OSS) can be defined using a myriad of criteria in today’s complex development ecosystem. In this article, it’s defined as those programs that enable royalty-free distribution, the release of the source code, and the requirement for all modifications to be distributed under the same terms as the original software license. With the appropriate context established, let’s explore the challenges facing OSS.

Since the beginning of the Internet, OSS has contributed tremendous value to the tech community. By sharing source code with the broader development community, applications are typically pushed through the software development lifecycle (SDLC) faster and at less cost. This source code also acts as a launching pad for countless other projects that are spared the time and expense of starting from scratch.

However, the profitability of OSS is exponentially lower than proprietary software development. This situation is ironic given that 96% of applications have open source components. In addition, the code base for those applications contains 57% open source code on average. These numbers suggest there is a blatant disconnect in the ecosystem. While end users capture immense value, those in the trenches continue to struggle.

But what is OSS worth? Based on an estimate calculated by Black Duck more than 6 years ago, it’s likely that the combined global value of open source software amounts to significantly more than $387 billion today.

Source: 2018 Open Source Security and Risk Analysis

The Motivation Behind Open Source Software

You may be wondering why any developer would choose to work in OSS when proprietary development is far more profitable. So, what exactly motivates developers to continue working on open source projects? Unlike extrinsic motivation that is typically driven by the fear of consequence and the desire for reward, OSS is pushed forward by intrinsic factors.

Open source developers are often personally invested in pushing a project forward because it’s a hobby, they have fun doing it and enjoy learning, or they want to create something for the good of all. This altruistic approach puts people before profits and is in complete contrast to the profitability pursued by proprietary applications.

Roles in the Open Source Ecosystem

For those altruistic developers that continue to support open source initiatives, there are defined roles that typically characterize participants.


Contributors can be described as those that give back to a program or application in some capacity. Their contributions might include bug fixes, building features, enhancing documentation, and fixing typos.


Those that fall under this category are participants that drive the vision of a project and manage its organizational components. Tasks may include performing bug triage, reviewing pull requests (PR), and directing the overall project. This work is an ongoing obligation that is often unappreciated by the greater community.

What most don’t realize is that 65% of all OSS repositories generate a Truck Factor of 2. A Truck Factor reflects the number of developers that must leave (get hit by a truck, win the lottery, etc.) before a project becomes unsustainable. This description paints a precarious picture of the open source ecosystem and its future viability. Semantic UI is only one example of a project that is no longer sustainable, its sole developer stating:

“After having spent ~ 3 years of my life trying to make OS work with part-time proprietary work, or just plain being broke. I don’t think I know any other way that seems reasonable without compromising the software. Unfortunately, it means I have to push back development until I can find the means of financing to sustain it.”

Using Money as an Incentive for Open Source

While OSS may appear “free,” to the greater community, maintainers and contributors bear the brunt of user demands with minimal resources. To bring attention to this concerning trend, a group of 100 people gathered in San Francisco last year in hopes of changing the way we think about the sustainability of open source software.

In their resulting report, this group reiterated how a small group of individuals supports critical pieces of OSS with no financial support or contractual obligation. As a result, the goodwill of a few can no longer sustain the increasing demands of the greater OS ecosystem. But what is the answer to this dilemma? It might seem simple, but the concept is a relatively new one.

Use money as an incentive for open source.

And that’s precisely what companies like Gitcoin and CodeFund are trying to do. While their strategies differ, the end goal is the same – exploring how to better #fundl open source development.

Incentivizing Open Source Software
When it comes to incentivizing OSS development, there are several mechanisms to explore. While some have been tried before, others are more progressive. Each has its pros and cons, and all aim to better #fundl open source.


Donations are quite straight-forward; developers can ask for money from others to fund projects. Donations encompass grants, sponsorships, donation buttons, and the establishment of foundations. While donations present a low barrier of entry and allow developers to focus on code, there are considerable drawbacks to this approach.

For instance, without consistent active fundraising, there is likely to be a drop off in donations. Also, without a broad audience, developers may not be able to attract enough attention to garner substantial funding.


Developers can sell time, training material, and merchandise using this method. When funding projects using this approach, programs can offer end users books, paid training, merchandise, and even consulting services. This method can be leveraged as a useful marketing tool while also giving developers a clear understanding of end-user needs throughout the project.

However, smaller OSS projects may not benefit from this funding method due to their inability to support a large user base. Also, paid training is rarely in demand and this heavily customer-centric approach can take valuable time away from coding.

License and Usage

Projects can sell licenses, features, or paid hosting using this model. Developers might seek out venture capital, copyleft, open core, SaaS, and restricted license opportunities under this approach. The scalability of this funding model is promising if successful and has the potential to provide a full-time income.

While this is a promising option, once again small OSS projects may not benefit due to their limited user base and exposure. This approach can also become extremely time consuming and requires a strong entrepreneurial mindset, making it a challenging option for some developers.

Areas of Overlap in Open Source Funding

Within the same framework, there are evident areas of overlap. These are the areas that CodeFund and Gitcoin have begun to exploit.


Crowdfunding involves asking for one-time or recurring donations. In using this funding model, there are very few strings attached. It’s also easy to administer through the use of several platforms designed for this specific purpose – Patreon, Liberapay, Open Collective, and Flattr to name a few.

While appealing, recurring crowdfunding is hard to achieve as many don’t want to commit. Crowdfunding also generates fewer funds than other options and is typically not suitable for small OSS projects with less exposure.


Bounties provide a financial incentive to those willing to contribute to open source. Bounty programs are highly inclusive and leverage a truly global talent pool. Also, the monetary reward is directly linked to a specific task or required project metric. This transparent process can often lead to full-time employment for those developers taking part. Gitcoin is one example of a successful bounty platform that delivers these benefits.

And while the benefits are significant, there are some additional considerations. Bounties typically provide developers with minimal reward funds depending on the project and are usually not recurring. Bug bounty programs might also require developers to possess specialized security skills to work on a job.


Advertising provides the most stable source of passive, recurring income out of all funding methods. However, there are several factors to consider when choosing to employ this funding method.

Most importantly, a broad audience is required to ensure advertising is justifiable. Developers that use advertising must also consider the potential for lost trust and ethical concerns regarding marketing efforts. Conflict of interest is also possible should the advertisements displayed have any connection to the developer’s project.

In response to these challenges, CodeFund is working to eliminate the ethical concerns associated with developer advertising. In building an ethical advertising platform, CodeFund aims to help developers earn passive income in a trusted, reputable environment.

Changing the Trajectory of Open Source

Open source software has long been lauded as the birthplace of countless high profile applications. However, while proprietary software continues to generate billions, OSS continues to languish with little to no funding. This reality needs to change if open source is to remain sustainable well into the future – this is critical.

Moving forward, this small community of OSS maintainers and contributors needs to be robust and well-funded. If we fail to acknowledge the tremendous burden placed on those carrying the open source community, we’ll all suffer the consequences. Promising projects will be canceled, talented developers will flock to proprietary development, and the ecosystem that once generated immense innovative will cease to be.

But not all is lost, we can do our part to keep the lights on. While developers must take action to fund their projects, we as consumers must shift our cultural perspective of OSS. Although open source may appear to be free, countless hours of human effort and burnt-out developers most certainly suggest otherwise.