Disclosed source is not the same as open source
TL;DR: Agencies that simply publish code with no intention to foster community involvement, curate community feedback, or accept community contributions find themselves, almost without exception, engaging in an unsuccessful endeavor.
It’s not uncommon for government agencies to contact GitHub, looking for advice on how best to “publish” government-funded source code for “consumption” by the open source community. While a necessary and admirable first step, efforts to “release” source code, in reality, often fall short of actually being open source.
The argument for open source in government is well documented, but open source is about more than having access to the software’s human-readable code. Open source is a philosophy, a workflow, and most importantly a collaborative community, the basis of which is the opportunity to participate.
Government agencies and individual developers are free to make their projects’ underlying source code available for others to review, inspect, or reuse as they wish. This can be as simple as posting a zip file to an agency-owned FTP server, responding to a FOIA request by email, or even posting the source code to a code-sharing service like GitHub. Source code release under this paradigm is traditionally referred to as source disclosed, and is the first, not the final step in “open sourcing” government-funded code.
In addition to disclosing the underlying source code, to conform to with what we traditionally think of as open source today, publishers must properly license their code (generally not an issue with government), and should seek to create a community around the shared challenge the project sets out to solve.
Growing communities around shared challenges
Agencies that simply publish code with no intention to foster community involvement, curate community feedback, or accept community contributions find themselves, almost without exception, engaging in an unsuccessful endeavor. Rather than abandoning the code on the open-source community’s collective doorstep, the agency should expend effort, post-release, to ensure the project’s continued success.
At the most simple level, this is a matter of communicating the project’s goals and status to potential contributors, explaining how to contribute, and ensuring relevant stakeholders within the agency are empowered to review and accept such contributions. But, successful projects go a step further, and take steps to ensure there is no imbalance of information between developers on opposing sides of the agency firewall.1
Free like a puppy
It’s often said that open source is free as in speech, not as in beer, but I prefer to take that a step further, and note that open source is free like a puppy. You’ll get a lot out of the relationship, but you also have to put a lot in, the biggest contribution being a base level of trust.
Agencies are welcome (and encouraged) to disclose the source code that powers the day-to-day workings of our shared democracy, but they should know that that’s neither the last step, nor is that truly open source. Open source is a symbiotic relationship, a shared partnership, not a one-way, one-time, set-it-and-forget-it broadcast.
You can read more community building best practices within the government community on GitHub (GitHub login and government email required). ↩
If you enjoyed this post, you might also enjoy:
- Five best practices in open source: external engagement
- Why open source
- Everything a government attorney needs to know about open source software licensing
- Twelve tips for growing communities around your open source project
- Eight reasons why government contractors should embrace open source software
- 19 reasons why technologists don't want to work at your government agency
- A White House open source policy written by a geek
- Open source, not just software anymore
- Why you probably shouldn't add a CLA to your open source project
- Five best practices in open source: internal collaboration
- 15 rules for communicating at GitHub
Ben Balter is the Director of Engineering Operations and Culture at GitHub, the world’s largest software development platform. Previously, as Chief of Staff for Security, he managed the office of the Chief Security Officer, improving overall business effectiveness of the Security organization through portfolio management, strategy, planning, culture, and values. As a Staff Technical Program manager for Enterprise and Compliance, Ben managed GitHub’s on-premises and SaaS enterprise offerings, and as the Senior Product Manager overseeing the platform’s Trust and Safety efforts, Ben shipped more than 500 features in support of community management, privacy, compliance, content moderation, product security, platform health, and open source workflows to ensure the GitHub community and platform remained safe, secure, and welcoming for all software developers. Before joining GitHub’s Product team, Ben served as GitHub’s Government Evangelist, leading the efforts to encourage more than 2,000 government organizations across 75 countries to adopt open source philosophies for code, data, and policy development. More about the author →
This page is open source. Please help improve it.Edit