Category Archives: CPAN

Open Source components you depend on are not “third-party components”

Third party

– adj. relating to a person or group besides the two primarily involved in a situation

“third-party suppliers”

When using the term “third-party”, we usually refer to someone who is not part of an agreement, but who may still be influencing (or be influenced by) this agreement. When this party is an Open Source project you depend on directly, I propose we use term “second-party.” Here’s why.

Looking at third-party software suppliers, they often have a few qualities that are common between them.

  1. The first and second party may not be free to use this component without triggering terms in the contractual agreement (e.g. there may be terms governing how many individual users are allowed to use the component, leading to an increase in fees if this increases.)
  2. The first and second party may be allowed to learn or introspect the third party component in non-invasive ways, such as reading any supplied documentation, or through basic use of the component. But this usually disallows more intrusive tools and methods used to figure out how a component preforms – like reverse-engineering, de-compiling or instrumentation. Source code is usually not available for inspection.
  3. The first and second party may not permanently fix, improve or make other non-trivial changes to the third party component, beyond basic configuration – even if source code has been made available.
  4. The first and second party may not share any changes made to the third party component.

This list is looks quite a lot like the four freedoms of the Free Software Definition, doesn’t it? It is.

When you (as the first party) decide to use an open source component, you are accepting a license agreement offered by the component author or owner. When you do, they (in a sense) become the second party in a new relationship, where the terms of the agreement are laid out in this license, and with this, you gain privileged access to the Open Source component in ways that you – by definition – will never get from an agreement with a non-Open-Source component supplier. Privileged access and rights as laid out in the Open Source Definition.

And from the component author’s perspective, they (your second party) are still likely to appreciate your well-reasoned contributions that rainy day when you eventually decide to do contribute. You may be using their software in ways that exposes it to new situations which may lead to experiences to learn from and later used to improve the code you both depend on.

But while most users of Open Source components don’t exercise the rights afforded by the licenses they accept, they still retain these rights. They are still allowed to inspect, fix and share their improvements at any time, without asking for permission. And this privilege will still be there on that rainy day when you really need it.

Suppliers, colleagues or volunteers?

From the Open Source developer’s perspective, it may look different. You are maybe one of hundreds or thousands of users, but your constructive feedback and support is still appreciated. You are also a second-party to them, Both of you care about the long-term sustainability and success of the same project. The difference is one of scale – you may be second-party to hundreds of projects. They may have one or two orders of magnitude more.

So for second-party relationships to work at this scale, we should remind ourselves that constructive relationships like these, should be treated as an ongoing, long-term, low-frequency activity.

When tending long-term relationships with where good communication is important, it helps that we use the appropriate terms. If you treat your colleague the same way you treat a stranger, you’ll eventually find that this colleague becomes a stranger – this can be troublesome that day you need them the most!

So when an Open Source author says they are not your supplier – take the hint! If you depend on them, they are something closer to a colleague, or partner. If they have a bad day, you may be affected in ways similar to when a colleague has a bad day – If a colleague struggles with burnout, would you treat them as a “third party”?


To remind ourselves that we’re in a low-frequency long-term relationship, let’s adopt terms like “second-party component”, developed in a “second-party project” with help from “second-party devlopers”. This is especially important when referring to people and projects we depend on directly. Even the term “second-party suppliers” could be used if you are paying for this privilege.

And while low-cost reminders like “thank you” or “I need you” are just as necessary in Open Source relationships as they are at work and at home, we can also keep an eye out for our second-party colleagues. If you have resources the second party needs to stay around in the long term – make sure to support them before it’s too late! You can even turn your second-party projects into your second-party suppliers with communication, collaboration and funding.

After all, when you depend on them, you might as well rely on them.

NIS2 and CRA – EU LAWS that may kill Open Source?

New EU laws are coming that will affect Open Source. Should we worry?

One is the NIS2 directive, which cares about the state of computer and software security in sectors that work on critical infrastructure. Another is the Computer Resilience Act, which tries to improve the security landscape around network-connected devices.

Depending on how these two directives are implemented, and how companies and communities react, this may either lead to increased funding for badly needed efforts in resource-starved Open Source communities — or — motivate affected businesses to move in the direction of software mono-cultures and away from the culture of permission-less innovation that Open Source software developers have practiced for decades.

Of course, these laws aren’t finished yet. NIS2 has to be implemented in local law, and the CRA is (as of this writing) still a work in progress. While the situation may still change, I believe there are a couple things Open Source communities can do to prepare already now.

  • Ensure supply-chain security procedures are in place and all issues resolved.
  • Create easy-to-find-and-use documentation directed at business managers that are forced to be introduced to their new Open Source colleagues.
  • Clarify project adoption and takeover procedures so the ones with a bus-factor of zero get a chance to be revived.
  • and more…

I’ve summarized some of my thoughts on this in the presentation I gave at the Perl Toolchain Summit 2023 in Lyon, France, on April 27th 2023, embedded below. (Edit: The slides from this presentation can be found under the CPAN Security Group list of presentations.)

Presentation about NIS2 and CRA at PTS2023

As a background and preparation for this talk, I and the Norwegian chapter of the Internet Society organized a fireside chat on April 22nd 2023.

In this conversation, we explored these laws (and others) both from a legal, security and Open Source perspective. The panel consisted of Simon Phipps (Director of EU Policy at the Open Source Initiative), Kaspar Rosager Ludvigsen (Lawyer and PhD candidate, working on the Cyber Resilience Act), Hans-Petter Fjeld (Senior Security Analyst at Defendable), and myself (Community activist and organizer in the Perl and Raku communities).

ISOC Norway fireside chat with Simon Phipps, Kaspar Rosager Ludvigsen, Hans-Petter Fjeld and Salve J. Nilsen

This event was graciously funded with a grant from NUUG Foundation.

If you find these topics interesting, feel free to reach out to me on Mastodon!