Have you ever wondered why we celebrate Richard Stallman as a visionary prophet of digital freedom while simultaneously abandoning every principle he fought for? The contradiction runs deeper than you think—and the evidence suggests Web3 has become the most sophisticated extraction machine ever wrapped in open source aesthetics.
This is the Stallman Paradox: the growing chasm between our intellectual reverence for genuine free software principles and our practical convergence on venture capital-optimized extraction models that merely cosplay as "open source."
And here's what makes it terrifying: It's not a bug. It's a feature of how our entire economic system operates.
Let's start with the numbers, because they tell a story that rhetoric cannot hide:
GPL usage has collapsed from 72% in 2009 to just 15% in 2024—a 57 percentage point freefall. Meanwhile, permissive licenses (MIT, Apache, BSD) that enable corporate appropriation without reciprocal obligations have surged from 28% to 85% over the same period.
Think about what this means: The very licenses Stallman created to ensure software freedom—licenses that require you to share improvements back to the community—have been systematically abandoned in favor of licenses that let corporations extract value without giving anything back.
But wait, it gets worse.
96% of enterprises have increased their open source usage. Sounds great, right? Except 89% of them explicitly avoid copyleft licenses to prevent the community protection mechanisms those licenses provide.
The message is crystal clear: Corporations want the benefits of community development without reciprocal obligations. They want free labor, not free software.
And the money confirms it. Web3 platforms extracting 90% of community value receive $19.6 billion annually
The market has spoken: Extraction pays. Cooperation starves.
Let me show you how this plays out in Web3 specifically, because Base—Coinbase's Layer 2 solution—is the textbook example of what I call "open source theater."
Base markets itself as a decentralized blockchain platform. The code is visible on GitHub. Community developers contribute. There's rhetoric about "bringing a billion users onchain" and democratizing finance.
But here's what they don't emphasize:
Base operates with a single centralized sequencer controlled exclusively by Coinbase. This means Coinbase alone decides which transactions get processed and in what order. They can censor transactions. They can extract MEV (maximal extractable value). They control the infrastructure that everyone else builds on top of.
When AWS had its October 2025 outage, Base went down with it. So much for "decentralization."
And the numbers? Base generated $360 million in annual revenue while claiming to empower users. In the past month alone: $51.1 million. Not to the community. To Coinbase.
But here's where it gets truly Orwellian: In July 2025, JPMorgan partnered with Coinbase so Chase customers can fund their Coinbase wallets directly with credit cards and convert rewards points to USDC. The very banks that crypto was supposed to render obsolete are now the primary on-ramps to the "decentralized" ecosystem.
And Coinbase itself? They're seeking a federal banking charter. They want to become the system they claimed to replace.
This is the Stallman Paradox incarnate: Code that's technically "open source" wrapped around infrastructure that's fundamentally extractive, controlled by a corporation seeking to become a traditional financial institution.
Here's what I've discovered after analyzing dozens of cases across open source, Web3, cloud infrastructure, and mobile platforms: Every successful technology initiative follows an identical four-phase pattern, regardless of founding principles.
The project starts with genuine open source or a "free" tier. Real value gets created. A community forms. There's idealistic messaging about empowerment, democratization, giving power back to users.
This phase is sincere. The founders often genuinely believe in the mission. The early community members are true believers.
Network effects kick in. Switching costs increase. The platform achieves critical mass. Essential features start migrating behind paywalls, marketed as "professional" or "enterprise" tiers.
The community becomes dependent—their workflows, their relationships, their professional identities are now tied to this platform.
The free tier gets deliberately crippled to force upgrades. This is the "freemium" model, but it's darker than it sounds. Community contributions get captured while economic benefits concentrate at the top.
Often there's a licensing change—from truly open source to something like Business Source License (BSL) or Server Side Public License (SSPL). These aren't actually open source, but they sound open source.
The platform has become an extraction mechanism, with the community providing free labor.
Lock-in effects prevent community migration. Even competitors are forced to adopt similar extraction models just to compete on user experience.
The original cooperative principles are abandoned for "shareholder value." "Open source" becomes marketing rather than operational reality.
And here's the kicker: This pattern is inevitable under current economic conditions.
Let me show you this pattern playing out right now with Redis, the popular in-memory database.
Redis started with a BSD license—truly open source, do whatever you want with it. AWS and other cloud providers offered managed Redis services, making tons of money without contributing much back to the project.
March 2024: Redis changed to dual-license RSALv2 and SSPLv1—neither actually OSI-approved open source—specifically to prevent cloud providers from offering Redis-as-a-service.
The result? Redis lost most of its external contributors. The project went from substantial community contributions to almost none overnight. Trust, broken.
The community responded by creating Valkey, a truly open source fork now led by the Linux Foundation.
Then May 2025: Redis added AGPLv3 (actually open source this time) and claimed they were "returning to open source."
But the damage to community trust was done. And Redis's motivation was never about software freedom—it was about preventing cloud providers from extracting value without paying Redis the company.
This same story plays out again and again:
Elasticsearch changed from Apache 2.0 to SSPL. AWS forked it to create OpenSearch. Community split.
Terraform switched from Mozilla license to Business Source License. Community created OpenTofu fork. Then IBM acquired HashiCorp for $6.4 billion—precisely because the license change gave IBM more control.
Docker kept the engine open source but made Docker Desktop require paid subscriptions for any company over 250 employees or $10M revenue.
Every single case follows the same pattern: Start open, build community, capture value, extract rents.
Want to see the Stallman Paradox operating at truly global scale? Look at Android.
Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is technically open source under Apache 2.0 license. Google tells regulators "it's open source!" when facing antitrust scrutiny.
But here's reality: The Android that matters—the one people actually use—is AOSP + Google Mobile Services (GMS), which is completely proprietary and closed.
Play Store? Closed. Play Services? Closed. Play Billing? Closed and mandatory—if you want to sell digital goods in your app, you must use Google Play Billing and give Google their cut.
And as of March 2025, Google moved all Android development to internal, private branches. The "open source" code gets released after Google finishes development, with the community excluded from actual decision-making.
You can technically fork Android. LineageOS and others have done it. But without Google Mobile Services, your fork is unusable for the vast majority of users. The apps they want don't work. The services they depend on aren't available.
So Android is "open source" in the same way Base is "decentralized": Technically true in the narrowest sense, functionally false in every way that matters.
The Stallman Paradox isn't just about individual projects—it's about the entire foundation of our digital infrastructure being built on fragile, volunteer-maintained open source projects that nobody's funding.
Remember when a developer unpublished an 11-line JavaScript package called left-pad and it broke React, Babel, and thousands of high-profile packages globally?
That one incident revealed something terrifying: Our entire JavaScript ecosystem—billions of dollars of commercial software—was built on a massive dependency tree that nobody fully understood, maintained largely by volunteers, with no redundancy or safety mechanisms.
A fresh Babel install includes 41,000 files. A blank npm-based app template starts with 28,000+ files. And nobody knows what all of them do or who maintains them until they vanish.
Or consider Log4j, a Java logging library. It had a critical vulnerability—CVSS score 10.0, maximum severity—that went unnoticed for eight years (existed since 2013).
When it was discovered in December 2021, 93% of enterprise cloud environments were affected. The vulnerability was so severe that cybersecurity experts called it "the single biggest, most critical vulnerability ever."
Within 24 hours of disclosure, there were 60+ exploit variants being used. Attempts to exploit vulnerable systems: ~2 million per hour in the first days.
Affected systems: Minecraft, Steam, AWS, Cloudflare, iCloud, Tencent QQ, and hundreds of millions of devices worldwide.
And Log4j? Ubiquitous open source library, largely maintained by volunteers, no comprehensive security review until it was too late.
Then there's SolarWinds—the attack that compromised 18,000 customers including U.S. government agencies and Fortune 500 companies.
Attackers didn't target the code directly. They compromised the build environment—the machinery that compiles and packages the software. They inserted malicious code that was then digitally signed, making it look completely legitimate.
The supply chain attack vector is the future of warfare, and our infrastructure—both proprietary and open source—is catastrophically vulnerable to it.
Here's what makes the Stallman Paradox so insidious: You cannot solve it through individual choices.
"Just use GPL licenses!" doesn't work when 89% of enterprises avoid them and venture capital won't fund projects that use them.
"Build community alternatives!" doesn't work when venture-funded platforms can invest 10x more in user experience and outcompete you on convenience.
"Vote with your feet!" doesn't work when your professional network, your career opportunities, and your collaboration tools are all locked into extractive platforms.
The problem is contextual, not individual. Market selection pressure, resource asymmetry, network effects, and professional requirements all create a gravitational pull toward extraction that individual virtue cannot resist.
This is why:
Red Hat suspended FSF funding in 2021 despite being built on free software
The Open Source Lab needs $250,000 by May 2025 or shuts down despite being critical infrastructure
The FSF received only $708,016 in memberships in 2019 despite Stallman being called a "prophet"
We revere the principles while defunding the institutions that embody them, because the economic incentives point toward extraction, not cooperation.
So where does Web3 fit in all this?
Web3 was supposed to be the answer—economic alignment through tokens, transparent on-chain value flows, DAO governance giving communities real control, blockchain enabling true decentralization.
And there are innovative experiments: quadratic funding mechanisms, on-chain transparent value distribution, DAO governance structures, copyleft-inspired licenses for smart contracts.
But look at what actually emerged:
Paragraph (the platform I'm using to publish this) claims to empower creators with "creator coins." Reality? The platform maintains 90% control of token economics. Creators provide content and audiences. Platform captures value.
OpenSea markets itself as a decentralized NFT marketplace. It eliminated creator royalties while maintaining its 0.5% trading fee on all transactions. Platform captured 95% of ecosystem value while community provided the content.
Friend.tech let you speculate on social relationships through "keys." It collapsed in 2024 after the extraction model proved unsustainable. But while it lasted, it captured massive trading fees while relationships got financialized.
Every Web3 platform follows the same freemium pattern as Web2, just with speculation-based extraction instead of usage-based extraction:
Traditional Freemium: Free tier with limited functionality → Pay for premium features
Web3 Freemium: "Free" participation → Premium value through token speculation → Platform captures trading fees, infrastructure control, and token economics design
The technology changed. The extraction didn't.
October 20, 2025. AWS US-East region suffered a catastrophic DNS and API failure.
What followed was a global cascade: Banks offline. Government systems down. Social media collapsed. Retail couldn't process payments. Even platforms not directly hosted on AWS went down because something in their dependency chain was.
Base—our "decentralized" blockchain—suffered high latencies, synchronization errors, and block production inconsistencies.
36% of Ethereum's execution-layer nodes rely on AWS infrastructure. When AWS sneezes, crypto catches the flu.
That outage made the Stallman Paradox visceral in a way theory never could. Millions of people simultaneously experienced digital serfdom—entire aspects of modern life controlled by rented infrastructure whose failure they could not remedy.
"When AWS sneezes, half the internet catches the flu" stopped being a joke and became documented reality.
So if individual solutions can't fix systemic problems, and the economic incentives inevitably drive toward extraction, are we doomed?
Not necessarily. But the answer isn't to "solve" the Stallman Paradox—it's to dance with it.
Tensegrity structures—like geodesic domes or the human skeleton—generate strength precisely through tension, not by eliminating it. They balance compression and tension in dynamic equilibrium.
What if we designed organizational and economic structures the same way?
Instead of fighting to resolve the tension between community values and commercial viability, what if we built systems that use that tension as creative fuel?
This requires:
Constitutional Layer: Stable, protected principles (like copyleft requirements, democratic governance, value distribution commitments) that cannot be changed without extraordinary community consensus.
Operational Layer: Adaptive business models and market negotiations that can respond flexibly to competitive pressures without violating constitutional principles.
Emergent Layer: Rapid community responses to new extraction threats, treating each attack as a learning opportunity that strengthens the system.
Systems that don't just survive extraction attempts but gain strength from them. Every lawsuit, every licensing dispute, every fork becomes data that makes the ecosystem more resilient.
Steward ownership models where founders can earn returns but cannot sell the company
Exit to community structures where companies transition to user ownership
Protocol-first design where competitive platforms can be built atop shared infrastructure
Value capture at the protocol layer instead of platform layer
The deepest shift isn't technical—it's cultural. We need to:
Teach paradox navigation as a core skill, not just in business schools but from elementary education
Measure success differently - not user growth and revenue, but user empowerment and distributed ownership
Celebrate cooperative competition - platforms competing on user experience while collaborating on shared infrastructure
Build coordination infrastructure that reduces the costs of collective action
The Stallman Paradox is everywhere:
Open source infrastructure (Redis, Elasticsearch, Terraform, Docker)
Web3 platforms (Base, Paragraph, OpenSea, every token project)
Cloud infrastructure (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud)
Mobile operating systems (Android, iOS)
Supply chain dependencies (npm, Log4j, SolarWinds)
Every domain shows the identical pattern: Start open, build community, create dependency, extract value, achieve dominance.
But recognizing the pattern is the first step toward building different systems.
The Stallman Paradox serves as a diagnostic tool—a way to see when we're participating in the very systems we claim to resist. We can intellectually champion Stallman's vision while practically funding and building the infrastructure of digital serfdom.
Real change requires not just better individual choices, but different contexts that make cooperative rather than extractive choices economically viable and culturally valued.
Until we change the underlying economic and social systems that make freemium extraction inevitable, we will continue to revere prophets whose visions we systematically abandon in practice—creating precisely the digital serfdom they warned us against.
So here's my question for you, the reader:
What patterns of extraction are you participating in right now, even as you believe you're building something better?
Are you using Discord to organize your DAO? Telegram for your community? GitHub for your "decentralized" protocol? Google Docs for your governance proposals?
Are you advocating for open source while avoiding GPL licenses because venture capital won't fund them?
Are you building on platforms that claim decentralization while maintaining centralized control of the infrastructure?
The Stallman Paradox isn't just happening "out there" in the systems other people built. It's happening in the tools you use, the platforms you build on, the business models you adopt, and the compromises you make every single day.
Recognition is the first step. Design is the second. Culture is the third.
The Stallman Paradox is happening everywhere. Our task isn't to solve it—it's to build systems that become stronger through the tension, transforming platforms of serfdom into collaborative architectures of collective wisdom.
The question isn't whether you'll face the paradox. The question is whether you'll have the courage to design your way through it.
What patterns of extraction do you see in your corner of Web3? What would it look like to build genuinely antifragile, community-owned infrastructure? Let's explore these questions together.
This article is part of an ongoing investigation into the systemic patterns shaping our digital future. If you found this valuable, I explore related themes around coordination failures, shadow hierarchies, and paradox navigation in other pieces on this blog.
Share Dialog
Regis Chapman
Support dialog
No comments yet