Discussions about what qualifies as “open source” often revolve around legal definitions provided by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). If a software project іs released under a license approved by the OSI, іt іs generally accepted as “open source.” However, the real debate goes deeper than just the legalities оf licensing — it’s about the broader “spirit” оf open source, its culture, transparency, and governance.
The Line Between Open Source and Proprietary Models
The distinction between open source and proprietary software is not always clear-cut. Questions arise when companies put core features of their open source projects behind commercial paywalls or restrict community contributions. For many, open source is not just about being legally able to use and modify the code — it’s about the values of collaboration, transparency, and meaningful community involvement.
One example of this tension can be found with Android. While Android, as released by Google, is open source under the permissive Apache 2.0 license, it is heavily influenced by Google’s control. Despite the fact that anyone can access and modify the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), Google has signed exclusive agreements with hardware makers that prevent them from using modified versions of Android. Additionally, unlike independent projects such as Kubernetes, Android lacks transparency in terms of its development and roadmap. Google’s control over Android raises the question of whether the project is truly “open” or if it’s just “open in name.”
Open Source Can Be an Illusion
While Android may be open in terms of licensing, it doesn’t offer the kind of transparency and community engagement many people associate with true open source projects. As Luis Villa, co-founder and general counsel at Tidelift, stated, “All the licenses are exactly as you want them — but good luck getting a patch into that, and good luck figuring out when the next release even is.” This highlights a crucial issue: the lack of independence can hinder true community participation. Without meaningful input from contributors, the long-term sustainability of a project becomes questionable, especially as companies alter licenses to protect their commercial interests.
The Importance of Governance in Open Source
The true accessibility of open source projects goes beyond the legal license; governance plays a vital role. According to Peter Zaitsev, founder of Percona, a company that offers open source database services, governance is crucial because if a project is controlled by a single corporation, they can change the license without warning. This centralization can undermine the autonomy and freedom that are the essence of open source.
Vendor-Owned Open Source: An Oxymoron?
The question of whether vendor-owned open source is an oxymoron has been a topic of discussion for years. Dotan Horovits, an open source evangelist, noted that problems typically arise when a project is led by a single vendor making decisions based on business needs. This situation casts doubt on the idea that true open source can exist when controlled by a single commercial entity.
The Role of Open Source in AI Development
The open source debate has become especially relevant in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI). Companies like Meta and DeepSeek have attempted to position their AI models as open source, but many of these projects are not truly open. For example, Meta’s Llama models, though labeled “open,” come with commercial restrictions that prevent them from being fully open source in the traditional sense. The complexities surrounding the definition of open source in AI have led to growing concerns about the commercialization of what is supposed to be an open and collaborative field.
The Power of the Open Source Brand
Despite the growing confusion around what constitutes open source, there is no denying the brand’s power. As Emily Omier, an expert in open source businesses, pointed out, the fact that companies are trying to redefine open source shows how strong the brand is. The desire to manipulate the open source label highlights the value people place on its principles, including transparency and accessibility.
Balancing Clarity and Flexibility
While it’s important to consider the “spirit” of open source, maintaining clear and objective definitions — primarily through licenses — helps avoid subjectivity. As Stefano Maffulli, executive director at OSI, explained, defining open source by its licensing criteria provides a reliable, measurable framework that the global community can trust. For practical purposes, sticking to the legal aspects of licensing ensures consistency and transparency, while leaving philosophical ideas about community engagement to be explored separately.
