Don't "give back" to open source  ## Metadata - Author: [[Emily Omier]] - Full Title: Don't "give back" to open source - Category: #articles - Document Note: ## Summarize: This article emphasizes the importance of changing the language used in discussions about open source contributions. It argues that the term "giving back" implies charity, while open source should be viewed as a business-critical element. The author suggests replacing "giving back" with more inclusive terms like "get involved," "contribute," or "participate." The article also mentions the need to improve the positioning of open source within organizations. ## Bullet Points: - The article addresses the language used in open source discussions, particularly the term "giving back." - "Giving back" is associated with charity and is not suitable for describing open source contributions. - Open source should be viewed as a business-critical aspect rather than a charitable endeavor. - The author suggests alternative phrases like "get involved," "contribute," or "participate" to describe involvement in open source. - Open source's positioning within organizations is discussed. - It is argued that open source is business-critical for most organizations but is poorly positioned. - The article highlights that open source may not have universally positive connotations for everyone, including some engineers. ## Paraphrase: 1. Original: "When I buy groceries, I’m not giving back — I’m taking care of my basic needs." Paraphrase: Purchasing groceries is not a form of giving back; it is essential for meeting one's basic needs. 2. Original: "If the open source community wants companies to support open source through thick and thin, it needs to change the conversation around being involved in open source from one that’s about charity to one that’s about taking care of the company’s basic needs." Paraphrase: To ensure long-term company support for open source, the community must shift the discourse from charity to meeting the company's essential requirements when it comes to open source involvement. ## Conclusion: The article emphasizes the need to change the language used in open source discussions, moving away from the charitable connotations of "giving back" and focusing on the business-critical nature of open source. It suggests alternative phrases like "get involved," "contribute," or "participate" and highlights the importance of better positioning open source within organizations. Additionally, the article acknowledges that open source may not have universally positive perceptions. ## Questions: 1. How does the language used in discussions about open source impact the perception of its importance? 2. What are the potential consequences of positioning open source as a charitable act rather than a business-critical element? 3. How can open source communities effectively improve their positioning within organizations? 4. What strategies can be employed to make open source more appealing to individuals who may not have a positive view of it? 5. How can the open source community encourage companies to provide consistent support for open source projects? ## Auto-tagging: open source, language, giving back, charity, business-critical, positioning, contribution, perception, community support ## Index Creation: - Open Source - Giving Back - Charity vs. Business-Critical - Alternative Phrases - Positioning Within Organizations - Perception of Open Source ## Table of Contents: 1. Introduction - The Language of Open Source 2. The Problem with "Giving Back" - Charity vs. Business-Critical 3. Shifting the Discourse - Alternative Phrases 4. Positioning Open Source - Business-Critical Importance 5. Mixed Perceptions - Not Universally Positive 6. Conclusion - Language Matters in Open Source ## References: None provided. ## Future Research: 1. Investigate the impact of language on corporate support for open source projects. 2. Explore strategies for improving the perception of open source among various stakeholders. 3. Analyze the effectiveness of different phrases in encouraging open source participation. 4. Conduct surveys to understand the reasons behind negative perceptions of open source among engineers. 5. Examine the role of open source in the long-term sustainability of businesses. ## Hypotheses: 1. Changing the language used in discussions about open source to emphasize its business-critical nature will lead to increased corporate support. 2. Adopting alternative phrases like "get involved" and "contribute" will encourage more individuals to participate in open source projects. 3. Negative perceptions of open source among engineers may be related to misconceptions about its impact on their work, which can be addressed through education and communication. 4. Open source can play a vital role in the long-term success and sustainability of companies, and this can be quantified through empirical studies. 5. Positioning open source effectively within organizations can lead to greater collaboration and innovation in software development. ## Methodology: 1. Conduct surveys and interviews with corporate leaders to assess the impact of language on their willingness to support open source. 2. Implement A/B testing to evaluate the effectiveness of different phrases in encouraging open source participation. 3. Analyze qualitative data from interviews with engineers to identify the specific reasons behind negative perceptions of open source. 4. Perform case studies on companies that have successfully integrated open source into their business strategies to understand the benefits. 5. Utilize organizational psychology research methods to explore the positioning of open source within companies and its effects on teamwork and innovation. ## Implications: Effective language and positioning in open source discussions can lead to increased support from both individuals and corporations, fostering innovation and sustainability in the open source community. Improved perception of open source among stakeholders can drive greater collaboration and participation, ultimately benefiting the entire technology industry. ## Logical Validity: The main argument of the article centers around the use of language in open source discussions and its implications. The author correctly identifies the logical fallacy of equating open source with charity and effectively argues for a shift in perception towards open source as a business-critical element. The article is logically coherent, and its points are supported by examples and reasoning. There are no apparent logical fallacies in the article. - Document Tags: [[5fftf]] [[open source]] - Summary: The open source community should change the language around "giving back" to open source, as it positions open source as a charity rather than a business-critical part of a company's strategy. Instead, terms like "get involved," "contribute," and "participate" should be used to encourage companies to support open source. The blog post emphasizes the importance of positioning open source correctly at various levels, from individual projects to the overall movement. The author also mentions that open source may not have positive connotations for everyone, as seen in conversations with engineers. - URL: https://www.emilyomier.com/blog/dont-give-back-to-open-source Words matter, which is why the open source community needs to stop talking about giving back. Giving back is all about charity. When I mentor a high school student, I’m giving back. When I donate money to a homeless shelter, I’m giving back. When I buy groceries, I’m not giving back — I’m taking care of my basic needs. Charity is all well and good. But no one should be surprised that when things get tough, the first thing people cut back on is charity. When open source communities chastise companies for not giving back, they are **positioning open source** in general as a charity; in other words, as something that you do when you can. That is very, very different from positioning open source communities and projects as a business-critical part of a company’s strategy. If the open source community wants companies to support open source through thick and thin, it needs to change the conversation around being involved in open source from one that’s about charity to one that’s about taking care of the company’s basic needs. This is really a blog post about positioning. There are so many levels of positioning to think about when it comes to open source, from individual projects to the relationship between a project and a commercial offering to how open source as a movement is positioned. I think open source, generally speaking, *is* business critical for the vast majority of organizations, but it’s positioned poorly. So what should you say instead of ‘give back?’ I’m not sure, but “get involved,” “contribute” and just “participate” are all better, and don’t imply being scolded about how you should donate more to people in need. PS interestingly, I’ve had two recent conversations with people who are both engineers (one a software engineer, one a ‘bridges and roads’ engineer) about open source in their workplaces, and neither were big fans. Just a reminder that open source doesn't have 100% positive connotations for everyone. Do you know a founder who needs help positioning their open source project and commercial project, individually and in relation to each other? [Put us in touch.](https://www.emilyomier.com/work-with-me), Don't "give back" to open source, Emily Omier, 01ha25d5pzyv3mmqqnw2ytzc1z.