Understanding Open Source: More than Just a License

While licensing plays a vital role in defining open-source software, the debate becomes intricate when considering the legal definitions versus the true essence of open-source. Various aspects come into play, such as whether an “open source company” has limited its project by putting key features behind a paywall. Furthermore, the level of transparency surrounding ongoing development and the extent of community input are vital components of the conversation.

For many enthusiasts and advocates, the concept of open source transcends the mere legalities of code usage and modification. The underlying culture, transparency, and governance practices associated with open source are crucial to its true nature.

The Android Dilemma

The Android ecosystem is a prime example of this nuanced debate. Users are familiar with the version of Android offered by Google, which is equipped with a myriad of apps and services. At its core lies the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), released under the flexible Apache 2.0 license, allowing anyone interested to access, fork, and modify it for various hardware needs.

By nearly all accounts, Android stands as one of the most open-source platforms available today. Google has leveraged this openness as a defense against accusations of anti-competitive behavior, highlighting how Amazon has adapted Android for its own Fire-branded devices. However, this aspect does not take into account the “anti-fragmentation agreements” that Google has executed with hardware manufacturers, limiting their ability to utilize forked versions of Android. Unlike Kubernetes, which operates under an independent foundation with a broad array of corporate and community contributors, Android is predominantly under Google’s stewardship, resulting in less transparency regarding its development roadmap and community engagement.

Voices from the Industry

“Android is thoroughly documented and legally classified as open source, making it perhaps one of the clearest examples of an open entity,” noted Luis Villa, co-founder and general counsel at Tidelift, during a panel at State of Open Con25 in London. “However, achieving meaningful contributions or understanding future releases can feel nearly impossible.”

This encapsulates a significant concern within the open source community: perceived openness can sometimes be more illusion than reality. Limited independence may inhibit genuine engagement from those wanting to contribute. This raises serious questions about a project’s sustainability, especially given the numerous open-source organizations that have shifted licenses to safeguard their business interests.

Peter Zaitsev, founder of the open-source database services firm Percona, also weighed in, remarking, “Practical accessibility in open source extends well beyond just licensing. Governance structures are essential, as a single corporation could easily alter licenses when necessary.”

The Risk of Vendor Dominance

Concerns about single-vendor dominance in open source were reiterated by Dotan Horovits, an open-source advocate at the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF). He contemplated the notion of open source potentially “turning to the dark side.” Horovitz highlighted that conflicts typically arise when a vendor-controlled project adjusts its features primarily to align with its own business objectives. “This leads to a pressing inquiry: is vendor-controlled open source contradictory?” he questioned, a topic of increasing relevance as we move toward 2025.

The Growing Importance of Open Source in AI

The discussions surrounding open source are intensified in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence. Open source initiatives have become crucial in AI development, drawing attention from tech giants and startups alike.

One notable example is China’s DeepSeek, which gained significant attention thanks to the open-source movement. While the MIT licenses governing these models are categorized as open source, ambiguity still surrounds several components, including training data. In response, researchers at Hugging Face are endeavoring to develop an even “more open” variant of DeepSeek’s reasoning model.

Meanwhile, Meta has heavily promoted its Llama series of large language models (LLMs) as open source. However, this branding comes with caveats, as many experts argue that Llama does not genuinely fit the open source category — the models, while somewhat more accessible than competitors, are still bound by commercial limitations.

“Despite my reservations regarding the classification of open source AI, it’s evident that Llama fails to meet the true criteria of openness,” Villa commented during discussions.

Emily Omier, a consultant in open source business, emphasized that such attempts to dilute the open source branding highlight its significant appeal and influence. “The fact that people make efforts to manipulate the meaning of ‘open source’ underscores its importance,” she remarked.

Regulation and Brand Equity in Open Source

Regulatory factors may play a significant role in shaping interpretations of open source. For instance, the EU AI Act includes specific provisions for “free and open source” AI systems, provided they do not pose an unacceptable risk. This context helps elucidate why some corporations might endeavor to redefine what “open source” embodies.

<p“There are numerous stakeholders currently interested in altering the definition of open source due to its brand strength and associated regulatory implications, and this trend is concerning,” Villa added.

Establishing Clear Definitions

The call for establishing a more refined understanding of what constitutes open source has been echoed in the community. While incorporating additional criteria that reflect the “spirit” of open source may be beneficial, maintaining clear definitions based solely on licensing ensures simplicity and reduces subjective interpretations.

How much community involvement would be required for a project to qualify as “truly open source”? From both a practical and legal viewpoint, limiting the definition to licensing appears the most feasible approach.

Stefano Maffulli, the executive director at OSI, acknowledged this perspective, stating that while many organizations venture into concepts of “open design, community, and development,” these notions remain fundamentally philosophical. “The essence of having definitions is to set criteria that can be systematically evaluated, and focusing on licensing enables this,” Maffulli noted. “The global community and industry now rely on the Open Source Definition and the forthcoming Open Source AI Definition as reliable benchmarks.”