Imagine a big dinner where everyone contributes something. Someone brings bread, someone cooks a stew, someone arranges music and someone brings wine. The atmosphere is good. There is community, laughter and the feeling that this is something we are doing together.
In the middle of the dinner, someone stands up and says that they now want to start charging for serving the food. Not the whole meal, just parts of it. And they also want to decide how the dinner will be organized in the future because they have invested the most.
There is silence.
Not because it is unreasonable for someone to want to make money from their work. But because something is rubbing off. Who really owns the dinner?
This is basically the same question that arises in the relationship between the common and the commercial.
Commons and commercialism are two different logics that must be reconciled
The common, often called the commons, is about resources, knowledge or infrastructures that are shared and managed together. It can be anything from open digital platforms to shared natural resources or knowledge systems.
Commercial is about creating value that can be converted into revenue. It requires focus, efficiency and incentives to invest, develop and scale.
At first glance, these two worlds may seem incompatible. One is based on sharing, the other on ownership. One on openness, the other on competition.
But the reality is more interesting than that.
The common must set the rules
If we return to dinner, it is obvious that something must be defined from the beginning. What is common and what is not?
This is crucial. If the common does not have a clear framework, there is a risk that it will gradually be taken over by commercial interests. Not necessarily out of malice, but because commercial has an inherent drive to expand where there is value.
The common therefore does not just need to exist. It needs to govern processes. It needs to define what is open, what is shared and what rules apply to use and development.
In the open source world, we see this clearly. Licenses define what can be done, how code can be used and what must be shared back. It is not a limitation. It is a protection for the common.
The commercial must be allowed to make money
At the same time, there is a naivety in believing that everything can be completely open without commercial incentives.
Development, maintenance and scaling require resources. Time, expertise and capital. Without the possibility of making money, the common risks remaining at the mercy of good intentions.
The commercial contributes something crucial. Focus, pace and willingness to invest.
But here comes the important balance. The commercial needs to have something to make money from, but not at the expense of the common.
It can be about services on top of a common platform, about implementation, support or specialization. Value is created in the interaction, not in taking over what is common.
The requirement to give back
One of the most critical principles in this relationship is that there must be a mechanism for giving back.
If companies build their businesses on the commons without contributing back, a classic problem arises. Some contribute, others benefit. In the end, the system is eroded.
This is something that many open source communities have struggled with. Large companies use open solutions, make money from them, but contribute minimally in return.
Therefore, the requirement for feedback becomes central. It can be in the form of code, resources, funding or knowledge. The point is that the commons continue to grow.
This is where the relationship goes from being exploitative to becoming symbiotic.
Power relations and the difficult but crucial question
We also need to talk about power. Because money means power. And the commercial often has more of it.
If nothing is actively done, the balance of power will shift. Decisions will start to be made based on commercial interests rather than common needs.
This is not a moral issue. It is a systemic issue.
Therefore, structures are needed that balance power. Governance models, clear roles and sometimes legal structures that ensure that the common cannot be bought up, taken over or changed unilaterally.
Relationship agreements are an interesting tool here. By defining how the collaboration should work, how decisions are made and how conflicts are handled, a stable foundation is created. It is not just about what you do, but how you are together.
The starting point and why public funding is often needed
An aspect that is often overlooked is how these systems actually get started.
In many cases, an initial investment is required that does not immediately yield a return. Building something common, defining structures and creating trust takes time.
Public funding often plays a crucial role here. By investing in the common without requiring an immediate return, you can create a platform where both common and commercial actors can operate.
This also provides an important advantage. The conditions can be set from the beginning. The common can define the rules of the game before the commercial forces have full impact.
It’s a bit like setting the table before dinner starts, not after someone has already started taking over the kitchen.
The role of leadership in making it work
Creating this balance is not a self-sufficient process. It requires leadership.
In the beginning, it’s about setting direction, defining principles and building trust. To dare to stand up for the common while inviting the commercial.
Later, it’s more about maintenance. To adjust, balance and manage tensions. Because they will arise.
It’s a leadership that requires both clarity and humility. Clarity about what matters. Humility in the face of the fact that different logics must coexist.
When it works and when it doesn’t
When this relationship works, something powerful arises. The common creates a stable foundation. The commercial drives development and spread. Together they create more than either of them could do alone.
This is where the expression that one plus one makes three actually makes sense.
But when it doesn’t work, we see the opposite. Either a commons that stagnates because it lacks resources, or a commercial system that erodes the commons until there is nothing left to build on.
One presupposes the other
Perhaps the most important insight is that the relationship between commons and commercial forces is not about choosing sides.
It is about designing the interaction.
Because the commons without commercial driving forces risk becoming slow and vulnerable. And the commercial without a strong commons risk becoming short-sighted and exploitative.
The question is not whether they should coexist.
The question is who sets the rules for how they do it.
