Why the “spirit” of open source means more than licenses

Discussions about things that are not “open source” are often resolved by postponing them to open source initiatives (OSI): If software is available under licensed rubber stamped as official “open source” for OSImeaningThe software is then open source.

But when you fall into the legal definition of nuts and bolts, and when you fall into the “spirit” that open source actually means, the water is muddy. Certainly there is an important nuance Discussion of open source and proprietary software: Did the “open source company” hamstrug the project by sliding the core features behind the commercial paywall? How transparent is there about project development? And how much direct input does “community” actually have in a particular project?

For many, open source is not just about the legal ability to use and modify code. Culture, transparency, and governance around it are of paramount importance.

Everyone knows about Google-flavored versions of Android that ship to smartphones and tablets. The underlying Android open source project (aosp), released under acceptable types Apache 2.0-licenseanyone can access, access the “fork” and change it to their own hardware project.

Android is open source, by almost every definition, to the point that you get. And Google uses this fact to defend against anti-competitive criticism, noting that Amazon has reused Android for its own lineup Fire branded devices. However, this is all separate “Fluorosion Prevention AgreementGoogle has signed with hardware manufacturers that restrict use Fork version of Android. And unlike anything like Kubernetes Sitting under an independent foundation With a diverse range of corporate and community contributors, Android sits under Google’s direct control without making roadmap or community input significantly transparent.

“Android is perhaps the best documented, fully open ‘thing’ in the sense of license. ” Lewis Villaco-founder and general counsel Tidelifmentioned in a panel discussion at Open CON25 status In London this week. “All licenses are exactly the same as you want, but I wish you good luck, and when there’s even a next release, I wish you good luck.”

This reaches the heart of the discussion. Open source can be something like an illusion. The lack of true independence means a shortage of agencies for those who want to properly participate in the project. You can also question the long-term viability of projects proven by countless open source companies. License switched To protect their commercial interests.

“When you think about the practical accessibility of open source, it’s beyond license, right?” Peter ZaithefThe founder of Percona, an open source database service company, said in a panel discussion. “Governance is very important because if you’re a single company, you can change your licenses like ‘it’. ”

These feelings were echoed in another lecture. dOtan HorovitsHe is an open source evangelist for the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), and has meditated on the open source “Turning to Dark Side.” He noted that in most cases problems arise when a single vendor project decides to make changes based on its own business needs amid other pressures. “That asks for a question, Vendor-owned open source is a contradiction? ” Holobitt said. “I’ve been asking this question for several years, and in 2025 this question is more relevant than ever.”

AI Factor

These debates will not go anywhere anytime soon, as open source emerged as the main focus of the AI ​​realm.

China’s Deepseek arrived with a bang In the back of open source hype, the MIT license for the model is highly recognized as open source, but among other components there is still a black hole around the training data. That’s the reason A researcher on hugging face is about to create A “more open” version of Deepseek’s inference model.

Meta, meanwhile, has long led the open source horn. Llama brand Even with Llama, large-scale language models (LLMS) It’s not open source For most estimates, the model is probably more “open” than the other models, but with commercial limitations.

“There are whims and concerns about the definition of open source AI, but it’s really clear that what Lama is doing is not open source,” Villa said.

Emily Ommyropen source business and host consultant Open Source Podcast BusinessHe added that attempts to “corrupt” the meaning behind “open source” are evidence of its inherent power.

“It shows how strong an open source brand is. The fact that people are trying to corrupt it means people care,” Omier said in a panel discussion. .

However, many of this could be for regulatory reasons. I have an act There is a special sculpture of “free and open source” AI systems (apart from what is considered “”),Unacceptable risks”). And Villa says this is some way to explain why the company wants to rewrite its rulebook as to what “open source” actually means.

“There are a lot of actors who want to change their definitions right now, because of brand equity (open source) and regulatory implications. That’s awful,” Villa said.

Clear parameters

There is a clear argument for applying additional criteria that incorporate the “spirit” of what open source is intended, but having clear parameters defined by the license makes things simple and subtle subjectivity reduces the impact of

How much community engagement does something really need to be “open source”? On a practical and legal level, it makes sense to limit the definition to a license.

Stefano MaffriOSI’s executive director said that while some organizations and foundations are leaning on ideas about “open design, community, and development,” these are all fundamentally philosophical concepts.

“The key to having a definition is to have a standard that can be graded, and focusing on licensing is how it is achieved,” Mahuli said in a statement issued to TechCrunch. . “The global community and industry are now relying on the definition of open source. Open Source AI Definition As an objective measure they can rely on. ”