In the FOSS trenches

On this article I will discuss about the current state of the art of the Free, Libre and Open Source Software; what are the challenges for its sustainability; and how we can overcome them. Is FOSS model outdated? What can we do to improve it?

After almost 20 years of being involved in the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community, and having gone through different associations and foundations, I would like to give my perspective on its sustainability. I have seen how companies get closer and further from FOSS as they evolve, and how different FOSS entities have overcome challenges.

This is not a light matter and the contents of this article are not only opinionated, but a mere scratch on the surface. My intention here is merely to try to open a debate I feel is stagnant.

Where does the software come from?

Let’s cover the basics before digging into the topic. Bear with me, it will take only a few paragraphs to become more interesting.

Why does a software project, whether a FOSS or restricted licensed project, survive in the long run? The answer is simple: because there are people investing time and/or resources in it.

If those contributors only invest in the project in their free time, the bus factor (or lottery factor) is very high: that project is highly dependent on very specific individuals. If this group (usually small) of people contributing to the project decides to move on to another project, to stop contributing, or they just can’t afford to contribute anymore; that project may disappear, affecting who knows how many other software projects.

We could try to rely on public resources and the good will of people to contribute on their free time to the common good which is FOSS. But let’s be clear: we live in a capitalist society. This means, whatever is not sustained by capital, will have a difficult time to survive in the long run unless it is covered by some basic human right. And even then.

Whether we like it or not, we live in a capitalist world in which if you don’t have enough capital to back you up, you risk disappearing.

Sustainability is key to our stack

When building software, we are not only interested in working in a sustainable project. We need to ensure the sustainability of all the ecosystem around our project (dependencies, frameworks, libraries, operative systems, drivers,…). If one of those layers in our software stack fails, our entire software stack may fail. We don’t want to have to quickly replace some dependency because the random person that is maintaining it suddenly stopped.

Mandatory XKCD explanation on FOSS projects.

Our ideal paradigm would be an ecosystem in which all the software projects we depend on are maintained by a diverse funded group of people, where there is spread interest in that project to continue. We don’t want to have a Heartbleed situation.

Which leads us to the first problem for project sustainability: whoever invests more time or resources in a project is who decides how the project evolves.

Where does the sustainability come from?

Most of the software we use has one or more companies behind maintaining them. There are roughly four models in which a software company can get the resources to invest back in a project.

Two column diagram. Left Column: Investment Right Column: Profit Software Development ----sell---> customer Software Development ----sell---> customers Software Development ----I have the knowledge---> Consultancy---offer support--->customers Consultancy---offer support--->customers
Simplified diagram of software economics

Custom software development: The company develops a software specifically tailored for a single customer. They invest once and sell it once. This sale can be either giving an executable, giving the source code, offering it as a service,… An example would be a webpage built from scratch.

Develop once, sell many times: The company develops a more generic software which can be sold to multiple customers. One common example could be an application like Adobe Photoshop.

Develop once, sell services: The company develops a software that is customizable and allows space to different consultancy formulas. From selling technical support to adding extensions. This opens up the possibility to sell to even more customers that need a more specific solution. For example, SAP.

Externalized development: The company doesn’t develop any software at all. They build their business around a software created by a third party and focus on selling consultancy around that software. This company does not have intimate knowledge of the software they sell because they are not involved in its development. An example could be any of the companies (not Microsoft) that sells you support for your Windows.

How does FOSS fit here?

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) got into this paradigm with a lot of idealism and utopic dreams on how software could be made: Let’s work all together contributing for the greater good, sharing experiences, source code, freedom,…

Rainbow colored kitten with a unicorn and butterfly wings.
The promise of the FOSS utopia

And all those promises of freedom kind of broke the way of selling software. Suddenly you were able to see the source code of others, modify it, redistribute it, and run it yourself.

Now you can share costs, as shown on the following figure. You don’t have to start from scratch to develop a software. There is a consortium of entities, companies, or individuals involved in the development of said software.

Two column diagram. Left Column: Investment Right Column: Profit Software Development ----sell---> customers Software Development ----I have the knowledge---> Consultancy---offer support--->customers Consultancy---offer support--->customers
Simplified diagram of software economics with FOSS

The business model of selling custom software almost disappears. Right now almost all software in the market is based on or depends on FOSS.

Now, when you sell services around a software, even if you are not involved in the development of the software, you can still get knowledge on how that software works. You can have the knowledge expertise of the developer team without having to invest into development itself. The kind of services you can sell around a third party software improved.

FOSS as the ultimate way of profiting

This selling services model is what makes FOSS so attractive to companies. The cost of starting a new business is dramatically reduced. You can base your business in something someone else maintains, without the risk of that third party disappearing and voiding your company. Because the source code is out there and you will never lose it.

And this is the business model that gets abused by malicious actors.

How do you do, fellow FOSS developers?

As now costs are shared, companies need to invest less to get the same profit, which attracts more business around FOSS. Slowly, people contributing to FOSS are no longer the idealists that want to contribute to the greater good. Now there are people that want to get profit but don’t invest on FOSS. Because, why would they? The model works anyway. Their business works anyway. They can fill their pockets with money without having to invest into the software itself.

Are all non-contributors so bad?

Sometimes those non-contributors are an indirect force of good.

Imagine that you have a company in Europe, where all your customers are. And you maintain the software in collaboration with other companies spread around America and Europe.

If a company appears in, let’s say, Australia, looking for customers there, is it so bad, even if they don’t contribute? They are not “stealing” customers, those are customers you will never would have found anyway. They are expanding the market and reaching new niches. Maybe they didn’t even said hello in your mailing lists. But your business will continue unaffected.

We can go further and say that, even if they don’t contribute directly, maybe their customers will contribute. Writing articles about your software, creating tutorials, helping with translations, reporting bugs,… Or maybe as now there are a group of users of your software there, another company will start selling it and contribute back.

What is the problem then?

The main problem comes when the non-contributor is someone that can hurt your project sustainability. Maybe a big company, say for example Amazon, starts selling your product.

How do you do, fellow companies that make a lot of money around this software

As they are a big company, they can offer your product lowering the prices below the cost of offering it, to dry competitors. The big company has the muscle to make a team of consultants appear out of nothing, with the expertise of having studied the available source code, and offering a wide range of services without having to invest in the project itself.

This is a big problem, because the companies that are contributing to the project now have less customers, meaning they can invest less in the sustainability of the project itself. They can’t invest in new features as before, so the project becomes stagnant. There may be minor bugs accumulating because no one has the bandwidth to fix them. The project survival is at risk.

And the worst thing is: this big company doesn’t care if your project dies. They can fork it and continue with their legion of developers. Or they can just move to another similar project. No loss on their side, all gains.

The problem lies within

The problem is not that one company in particular does this. Today it may be Amazon, yesterday it was Apple, tomorrow it may be Google. Who knows. If I sit down with Jeff Bezos and I tell him: “Look, Jeff, pretty face, come here. Do you realize what you are doing? That you are killing this project by making it non sustainable? That you are hurting the common good? Please stop.” He wouldn’t care. Because it is profitable. And legal.

I too despised Elon Musk before it was mainstream

The problem is that in our society, in our economy, this kind of behavior is not only allowed, but incentivized. Exploiting a resource until you break it is profitable. And I may be able to convince Jeff to stop doing it. But there will be other companies that will take its place. Because it is profitable. What would be their motivation to stop doing it?

They don’t understand why we do FOSS. The only thing they see is that we are a naive gratis workforce that is doing all the investment for them to get profit.

What are we doing about it?

This is nothing new. We have been dealing with this for decades already. And there are several approaches to try to solve this. I am going to mention the ones I have found more common.

Post Open Source Software

This became very famous when Github started. Many of the new repositories didn’t have any kind of license attached at the time. Now there is a wizard on project creation to make you choose a license. But at the time, without any license attached, the source code uploaded had no explicit license. People wrongly believed that that was FOSS because it was published.

Some people even published the software without license on purpose, as a way to rebel against people ignoring or workarounding FOSS licenses.

Long story short: this is a legal nightmare that comes from the misconception that there are no default licenses and laws associated to your work. Depending on the country from where that code was created and the country from where you are trying to download and use it, the laws and restrictions over that software are different. Sometimes even contradictory. The code may be visible to everyone, but that’s the only certain thing about it.

A less extreme approach to these are the simpler licenses like the beerware, in which you can use the software however you want with the only condition that if you like it, and meet the developer in person, you have to invite them to a beer. Or the “Do what the fuck you want with the software”, which is literally that, do what the fuck you want with the software. A public domain in disguise.

Ethical Software

Some people tried to remove neutrality to software licenses to force the users to do good. But, well, how do you define good? If you are too detailed, that may not be very useful. But if you are too broad, it may be difficult to enforce.

Some licenses just copy the Human Rights Declaration as clauses. Which is something that any lawyer still can work around, but at least is an attempt. If you want to use that software, you must behave.

Open Core

This is a middle ground between FOSS and restricted licensed software. You make the core of your software FOSS, anyone can use it. While you, as a company (or a consortium of companies), offer a lot of restricted licensed extensions that no one else has, which is what keep your users hooked up. This allows for some community grow around your project while preventing other companies to just sell the same thing you sell without contributing.

But what does prevent a big company, again, to take that free core and with its army of developers build a lot of extensions that make your own seem like toys? So while you focus on developing the core and your extensions, that company just focus on their extensions.

More strict licenses

Las GPL license forces any vendor to redistribute the source code if they modify and redistribute (sell) it. If you use a framework, library, any kind of dependency that is GPL, you have to publish it too as GPL.

This forces companies to share any kind of customization or enhancements that they do to the base software. They are forced to share and contribute somehow. Which can be workarounded too, because you are not forced to do a merge request to the original project, you can just fork it. But at least the source code will be in the open somewhere and someone can take it back to the original project.

The problem is that in a cloud world you no longer sell or redistribute the software. You offer it as a service. This means that you can have a GPL software modified and not make the code available because you are not distributing it, it stays on your server (or that’s how some people claim it works). In a cloud world, GPL is just not enough.

That’s why AGPL was created: if you offer something as a service, you have to make the source code available too. And not only your source code, but all the stack. Why? Because you can always wrap the source code around some other software that enhances it without having to modify the software itself.

And this scared a lot of people away. The discussion if this is a legit fear or not could be another set of articles by itself.

Commons Clause

The software has a regular FOSS license with an extra clause: if you want to sell this software, you have to add something to it. Some feature, some customization. But just don’t sell it as is. If you want to use it, you are completely free to do it. But selling? No, if you are profiting you have to develop something.

This drives away companies that are not interested in developing around the software, while you attract companies that are interested in developing and contributing. On the other hand, you are also driving away smaller companies and startups that may be contributing later, but need to build some business only based on services before they can afford to invest.

Depending on how this commons clause is redacted, it can be a very good or a very bad idea. It may have exceptions to allow smaller companies to participate, but then we are again adding blur that lawyers can work around.

Customized licenses

I don’t like them much, because it requires a full team of lawyers to make sure you are not making a mistake. If a license like Apache took years and an army of lawyers to make it strong and reliable, why do you think your small team of company lawyers can do it better?

There are a wide variety of customized licenses.

Sometimes they explicitly restrict that only companies from a certain consortium can sell or use the software. If you want to sell it, contact us first and discuss the fee.

The main drawback here is that you are scaring away other companies that may be interested in contributing. You are limiting how your community grows. You are introducing a risk to potential business. Will companies trust the consortium of companies enough to build a business around it? What if my company gets too big and the rest of the consortium wants to push me away or make me pay more fees? What if I become too big and I want to push the rest of the companies away?

Some other licenses just release the source code with some delay. The code you see in the repository or the code you can freely use may be two, three, four months old. This gives an advantage to the consortium of companies with access to the latest code over the companies that just take what is in the open.

But again, you are hurting potential contributors. What is the incentive to fix a bug or develop a new feature if the code I am working on may be too old and have conflicts with the latest source code? What if I am working on a bug fix that is already solved?

A change of paradigm

In the end, all these solutions are just a patch over the main issue here: our society is organized in a way that taking advantage of the common good is profitable.

Can we change this paradigm? Can we de-incentivize the capital profit and focus on sustainability instead?

Don’t change the license, change the paradigm

There are attempts to change to a Economy for the Common Good, de-prioritizing capital and trying to focus in the common good. You may make a lot of money by contaminating a river with your chemical plant, but the consequences should make it not appealing to you. Or maybe we just need the Fully Automated Luxury Communism?

Technology and the Virtues

I want to finish the article with some hope. I read a book called Technology and the Virtues, by Shannon Vallor. She explores the need to cultivate a technomoral virtue, based both in historical philosophy and current technology trends.

This may not be the final solution, but I like the approach of trying to change society from inside as the way to stop malicious actors. It is a long book, but as a very rough summary, there is a list of virtues suggested as a force to change society. Some of them may sound already familiar to you.


Respect the truth. Avoid infoxication and fake news. Be transparent and respect other people’s privacy. Don’t misguide your customers when you tell them what you are selling. Don’t hide important information.

If vendors were really honest about their restricted licenses, very few people would use anything that was exploiting the common good and making software less sustainable.


Focus on what is really important and don’t consume like crazy. Maybe it is time to stop buying to companies that hurt the common good. Or stop using software that uses dark patterns or hurt some groups of people. Leave social networks that allow violence against groups of people. Or, as a developer, restrain from working in companies that exploit resources or pollute.


We don’t know everything and we should be cautious. That doesn’t mean stopping innovation, but to think ahead how our decisions impact others. There are unforeseen consequences, like ai algorithms that become racist or collecting too much data that is later hacked.

I am sure the person who invented blockchain didn’t imagine how many scams would flourish around it and how much pollution mining those coins would make.


Don’t do things just because you can, but because it is the right thing to do.

You were so busy wondering if you could do it, you never stopped to ask if you should.

By the way, the moral of Jurassic Park is not this one, but “pay your developers right”.


Common good is the priority, even if that affects you negatively. This is a hard one to practice in our current world because you are sacrificing something you want in pursue of something that may or may not benefit others. If you are the only one making the sacrifice, it usually is very discouraging. We need everyone to do their part.


Wear someone else’s shoes. Share feelings. We are humans, let’s acknowledge we all have emotions and we all do things that can hurt others, even if we don’t want to.


Be emotionally vulnerable. We are all co-dependent of our environment and the people around us. And that goes both ways, they depend on us. You should care about the people around you the same way they should care about you. We have to help each other to not hurt and evolve to a better place.


Contribute to society, stop the evil actors, care about the common good. If you are planning on building something that is hurting your environment, don’t.


We are all together in this. Be good with the good actors but firm with the bad actors.


We are diverse, use everyone’s perspectives when taking decisions. This is a worldwide effort so it should be adapted to everyone in the world. Consider that not all cultures have the same aspirations or the same definitions of good and bad. We need to act globally but not impose our culture over others.


Practice humanly leadership. Aspire to utopia without falling into a Messiah’s complex or a white savior complex.

Technomoral Widsom

Practice these virtues always. Theory without practice is useless. And the more you practice them, the easier it will become.

In theory, if we apply these virtues regularly, not only on us but on the people around us, this will also change the paradigm around us and will make exploiting resources and destroying the common good something not desirable for anyone. Could this be our better chance?

Kaoto: Integrate without limits

I would like to present you with an ETL and integration editor Rachel and I have been working on for the past year with the initial help of Zineb: Kaoto.

What is Kaoto?

Kaoto is an integration editor to create and deploy integrations in a low-code way and no-code way based on Apache Camel. It combines a source code editor and a drag and drop graphical space synchronized with each other. It can be run both as standalone and as a service (SaaS).

With the no-code mode, the user can build the entire integration orchestration with the drag and drop function. Kaoto has a step catalog with a list of all available building blocks that the users may want to transform data or integrate with services.

The source code will be available for users curious to know what they are going to deploy. But in no case they have to understand or even see that code.

Example of building block drag and drop

With the low code mode, users can learn how to create integrations and, at the same time, control what they are deploying. They can use both the drag and drop and the source code editor, that will autocomplete what the user won’t or don’t know how to write. Meanwhile the graphical space will show the integration being built and the drag and drop will still be available for them to complete or accelerate the development.

Example of low code integrations.

Kaoto can help users start with Apache Camel and slowly build their knowledge. All the source code generated is clean and viewable in any IDE.

Customizing Kaoto

Each building block type can have its own microfrontend. This is useful when you add your own building blocks to your Kaoto instance. But it can also help adapt Kaoto to different kinds of users, hiding or extending certain details important for each use-case. Extensions can be manuals and helpers for Kaoto.

When used as a service, the extensions and the list of available building blocks are settings that can be stored in the cloud. Therefore, administrator users can modify this configuration, which will refresh live in the users playgrounds. In addition, as this configuration can be in the cloud, different users can share the configuration. This can help organizations accommodate different groups of users, offering different configurations depending on the profile.

What is on the roadmap?

We started the development focused on Kamelet Bindings, but we soon realized we could add more languages. Edition of Apache Camel routes (in yaml form) and Kamelet definitions are next in development queue. We are also working on translating from other integration languages to Camel DSL. This can help users migrate to Apache Camel.

We will soon have one-click support for cloud-native Apache Camel deployments via Camel-K. Matej is close to having an operator for Kubernetes clusters which will simplify even more the installation of Kaoto in the cloud.

You can quickly test it via docker as described on the quickstart. Make sure your docker images have access to internet to be able to access the default remote configuration!

You can find more information on the webpage of the project.

Are online events the new normal?

Some people have just (re-)discovered that we don’t have to meet in person to run an event. They are very enthusiastic about it. They are even asking to replace all conferences as online events. But, are they right?

Some of you may know I am going to co-chair the next FOSS4G. (Come Hell or High Water, but we are going to have a FOSS4G next year!) I have also participated on the organization of the last ApacheCON and some other minor online events. I have also spoken on many online events by now.

And, let me tell you, I am not as optimistic as those people. I really hope this post ages badly and in the following years we get better options for online events.

But as of today, I don’t feel we are anywhere close to replace face to face events with online ones. Delivering the talks as streaming is something good but we will be losing most of what makes a conference an amazing experience.

Let me tell you why.

Online Events Drawbacks

Online events allow people from all over the world to attend without having to travel. People with hard conciliation and people that can’t afford or are not able to travel will be on your event. It’s true, you will get attendees you wouldn’t have if it was a face to face event. And that’s good!

But that’s where the advantages of an online event end. And where a lot of new issues are created.

Leer más


Have you ever tried to find a good time slot for a simple one hour meeting between an Australian and someone living in Los Angeles? Exactly.

Now imagine allocating at least six good hours for streaming and interactions and trying to have at least everybody awake, no matter if it is early or late. Spoiler: you can’t.

Of course you can always find some arbitrary schedule that fits your biggest group of potential attendees and force the rest of your attendees adapt to it. Just make them imagine they are traveling and live on a different timezone, waking up at 3am to watch your talks, having lunch instead of breakfast and sleeping during the day. Seriously: is your event worth it?

Do you remember those people that couldn’t travel to your face to face event but can attend your online event? A good percentage of them will not attend your online event if it doesn’t fit their timezone. It doesn’t matter if they have the means to do it.

Hacking timezones

Of course, there are patches for this. Like having a 24/7 event so at all times there’s something happening for the people that are awake at that time. Which, in summary, just means having like separated events that overlap a bit between regions of the world. You will end up interacting mostly with people on your time zone region.

Some events are replaying their talks at different time zones so everyone has the opportunity to attend all sessions. But what’s the fun of watching some past talk, when even the speaker is no longer available for questions? I can watch it next month and it will be the same.


I just mentioned those people that couldn’t travel to your face to face event but can attend your online event. If only that was as truthful as it sounds.

Not everyone has a good internet connection at home. We can even say not everyone has an internet connection at hand to watch and participate on your event. Thinking otherwise just shows your privilege and how you forget not everyone has access to a good and stable bandwidth. Specially at home.

For some people it is easier to travel to your face to face event than to get a good bandwidth to watch the streamed talks.

So this group of people that wouldn’t travel to your event but would attend your online event just keep shrinking. Your real potential attendees are those in the right time zone and the right technological requirements.

Shadow Audience on Online Events

This one is for speakers. There’s no way your talk will be the same if you can’t see, hear and feel the audience as in face to face. Online events, no matter if the audience has their cameras on, are isolating. It is never the same.

Not having feedback on how well your talk is being received (or even worse: seeing a lot of cameras of distracted attendees doing something else) is a huge handicap that even the most experienced speaker will suffer. Not knowing if you should speed up or slow down to adapt to your audience is weird. Not knowing if your audience is laughing at your jokes or thinking you are a weirdo.

And probably your speakers are not familiar with your platform, which means they will be extra nervous of messing up. If the mic fails on a room full of people, you notice immediately and you can even just talk louder while it gets fixed. If the mic fails on an online event, you may not even notice until several minutes have already passed.

All these issues lead to talks not as good as those made face to face.


Let’s be fair: attendees will not be physically disconnected from their daily routines as they are when traveling to your event. Most of them will keep going to work, passing time with their families and even skipping some talks to do house work. These changes of context means losing attention.

Your event is just the side dish of their day to day, an extra appendix. They will never be as engaged as if they had to travel to a venue and be there physically.

Language Barrier on Online Events

I know, I know what you are thinking. No, María, this problem is the same, no matter if you are face to face or online. Let me guess: you are an English native speaker.

Even when having reliable broadband and enjoying high quality smooth 60fps video, understanding a foreign speaker over video is harder than in person. Maybe because the audience is shadowed and the speaker has no feedback on how well it is being received. Or maybe it is just because we speak differently face to face than online. Maybe we are missing corporal language. But it happens.

This could be fixed with subtitles on most cases. But, what kind of subtitles? The ones that run on the fly and so frequently confuse technical terms making the subtitle confusing? Or the ones that are attached to a pre-recorded video so the speaker is not really there?

No random meetings

As you don’t have to move from one room to the next, sit next to someone on a room or even mingle during the coffee breaks, you just lose all those opportunities to meet both friends and strangers.

Your event will be missing a space where attendees can meet more or less randomly. Some events are matching random attendees on private rooms or have general room halls for random chatting. And that’s a good idea, but still, it doesn’t replace introducing yourself to someone specific you feel is a good match when you see that person talking to someone you know or having a break and being open to engage in conversation.

Do you want to have an Ice Breaker or a Gala Dinner? Maybe you can try Mozilla hub for that. Too over complicated? High hardware requirements? But what other social platforms could be there that go beyond a chat and are not a simple video conference? How can we mimic this walking over the venue and saying hi to old friends or asking someone about their shirt drawing?

Financial Side

Contrary to popular belief, if you really want to have an online event that can compete with a face to face event, the cost will not be cheap. The proper software stack with the proper bandwidth can be as costly as the venue. And whatever you may be saving on catering you will spend in making the event more social and engaging.

It’s true that a basic online event can be done very cheaply, as I demonstrate on the next section. But still, it will be a cheap event and will not patch many of the social drawbacks exposed.

If you want to make the conference online, you have to work towards more lines of economic viability than in traditional face to face events. Because there are many things you can’t offer now (being the merchandise placement the most obvious one).

Sponsorship of Online Events

Obviously you will try to keep sponsors on board. But it would be insane to think sponsors will be willing to pay the same prices as in traditional events if you don’t offer anything above and beyond.

If your conference has some kind of sponsorship booth area, you need some kind of replacement. How do you plan to do that? And how are you going to make attendees go through it? Now you don’t have halls where the booths are showing fancy stuff.

If you host some kind of Business to Business slot, are you just going to run it as a normal online video session? How are you going to help them interact?


Most face to face events reconverted to online events are “in panic” offering free tickets, which will make it difficult for any online event to sell tickets at a reasonable price in the near future.

To make sure people would want to pay for your specific event, you must prepare some extras besides the streaming. You have to offer some kind of exclusive content to paid attendees besides the basic chats on the streamings to make sure the ticket price is worth it.

Maybe promote more panels where only paid users can participate and ask questions? Adding prizes or badges to users that participate more or attend more sessions?

Some events are offering open price donation tickets. Which means, you can have the ticket for the price you deem it worth. I have seen (from the inside) a number of events doing this. I won’t share actual numbers but trust me: don’t count with this money.


Have you thought of an online shop to sell goodies branded as the conference? Difficult to estimate if this will work if you haven’t sell goodies before, but tech conference attendees are well known for collecting branded shirts. This is worth a try.

Dare Donations

This was an idea that popped out watching the Games Done Quick events. They keep people engaged and donating money through a whole week. They propose “dares” and people donate to vote what to do. You have to find something that make attendees engage and control somehow the type of content they are going to see.

For example: If between 9:00 and 10:00 we get a minimum amount in donations, then some speaker will run a live demo on their presentation instead of a video. Or vote with donations what question to ask on a panel. Maybe even choose between two different talks.

This works awesomely well on the GDC but the GDC is a fun event with no consequence and that’s not the tone with most tech conferences. I have no way to estimate if this will work on our case. It may work if you choose the right “dares” and speakers are willing to collaborate.

Probably easier on FOSS conferences, where the camaraderie is a common denominator. Weirder in other types of conferences, specially academic ones.

Software Stack of Online Events

There are many valid software stacks to use for your online events. Here is a summary of what I have experimented with and what I am comfortable with.

Let’s start with a basic stack that covers minimum functionality for a cheap price and then proceed to more wholesome solutions.

The Basic Stack

This is the basic stack I have found that covers the minimum needed to offer a proper online conference: talk streaming and access to a VIP chat. The price would be ridiculously cheap if you use one of the popular free streamings like Twitch or YouTube. And remember that you can organize a full online conference using only free and open source software.

OBS Studio

OBS Studio is an old friend of streamers. And also FOSS. No matter what streaming platform you are going to use (something free or some custom server), it works. You can have combined screens and cams and different audio sources to get a beautifully orchestrated output.

If you follow gamer streamers, you will probably be familiar with OBS already.

If OBS Studio is too complex to use for you, your moderators or even your speakers, you can always try StreamYard. It offers a similar functionality on a web browser friendly interface. It will allow you to easily stream to popular free platforms too. Personally I am very satisfied with this tool, even if it is not FOSS. It is really easy to use and the hardware and knowledge requirements are low.


To cover the social side, Mattermost is my preferred option. It is a Slack-like messaging platform where you can offer special channels to your attendees according to their ticket (free or paid). There, you can have access to all social interactions; like asking the speakers, meeting other attendees or discussing on common rooms.


Although this stack covers all the minimal requirements for an online conference, it is messy and with decoupled parts. Your attendees may feel lost.

Attendees will have two windows or tabs in the browser: Mattermost and the streaming. The links to each streaming talk may be on some schedule in some webpage. It will be worth adding some developing time to create a website that contains everything on an usable format and gives some sense of being a single component.

Offline Talks for Online Events

If you are afraid your software stack may fail at the worst moment, you can ask your speakers to send their recorded presentations before the online event. You can even ask them for optional subtitles to overcome any language barrier.

Asking for recordings in advance gives you time to test if the video is right and schedule the release at the proper time and date. This reduces a lot the possibility of real time failures. Also, this way you make sure all videos have the proper duration, making the schedule more stable.

This gives the speakers also the opportunity to edit their videos on a fancy friendly way, adding special effects or anything that may be too risky to run on real time.

The speakers can also be asked to be at that proper time and date on the chat to interact with the attendees so the Q&A can run as usual.

But the event will probably look less dynamic, with all these pre-recorded talks. No cross-referencing talks you just watched, no possible change mid talk because someone made a good point.

Promising Software Stacks

If you don’t want to use the free streaming options and/or you are looking for a more holistic solution, there are some platforms and software stacks you can check. Take into account that these options require you to have the proper bandwidth, which means, they are going to be more expensive than the previously described minimum viable plan.

So the first thing you have to ask yourself before jumping into any of these platforms is: is it worth the risk of using our own/rented streaming servers instead of something like YouTube or Twitch?

The most attractive (to me) alternatives right now are the following.


BBB is a FOSS Conferencing System for online learning. Not designed as a conference software, it provides the users with class-like rooms and a chat per room. As a tool for teachers I felt it was very complete. As a tool for an online event, I felt things missing. It felt like many disconnected talks, not like a full schedule.


From the creators of Pretix and Pretalx, Venueless aspires to be the FOSS option for conferences. It is built on top of Big Blue Button, offering a wrapper that should make the experience more “conference-like”. I have to confess I haven’t tried it yet, but seeing how Pretix and Pretalx work, I’m confident this is going to be a big one. If you are considering using BBB, you should take a look at this one. If only because it provides features on top of it.

Both options have the huge advantage of being FOSS, which means, if you don’t like or need something in particular, you can dedicate your own developers into contributing for it. Even if you use a third party hosting, with proper care your contributions will make it to the main release so any third party hosting will offer them for you.

Yet Another Browser Mud

Based on traditional text-based online game spaces such as MUDs and MOOs, this FOSS platform for online events could be at least a nice secondary interface for your event.

Hopin was used on ApacheCON. It is not FOSS, which means you are completely dependent on what the company behind it wants to implement. For me, that’s a big red flag, specially on online events, which is something the software stacks are not yet mature enough. You cannot be confident yet that a restricted licensed software will be mature enough to provide you with everything you need.

On the social side, Hopin offered fancy features like matching you with random attendees, mimicking what a coffee break would be, or offering specific booth rooms so you can talk with sponsors.

Truth is, I am usually very social on face to face events and talk with random people and visit the booths. But nothing was calling me to use these features on the online version of this conference. It’s not as if you see someone you want to talk to in the coffee break so you just approach them. It looks forced to me. The risk of matching a complete stranger with nothing in common and having an uncomfortable conversation was high.

Online Events Experiences

I’m sure all of you have some experiences with online events by now. Let me share some insights I have experienced and why I still think online events can’t replace face to face ones.

EsLibre experience

Las EsLibre used Big Blue Button as the main conference platform, with RocketChat as the sidechat and MozillaHub for the Gala Dinner and social “after beers”. The experience was pretty good… except everything was disconnected, as we were using three different components completely decoupled.

And still, not the same as a face to face.

ApacheCON experience

ApacheCON used Hopin. It was in general a good experience, well organized, and we had more attendees than ever. But that may be misleading: most of the almost six thousand registered attendees logged in at some point in the event, but you rarely saw more than a thousand connected at the same time.

We used the “three timezone region” approach, which in the end led us to have like three different groups of attendees that didn’t mingle among each other.


Online Events can’t match Social Face to Face Events

At least, not for me, not with the technology and the social capabilities we have right now.

I really really hope this post ages badly. Because there’s a lot of people that can’t travel to on site events and they are missing all the awesomeness of a full event experience.

And, truth be told, having everyone traveling several times per year to different conferences is not ecological, not sustainable in the long term.

Maybe with experiments like the one from the Roguelike Celebration o the attempt at Google, we will be able to get closer to what we need.