However, the reality is more nuanced when it comes to the spirit of open source. Beyond legal definitions, key questions arise: Has an "open source company" locked essential features behind a paywall? How transparent is the project’s development? And to what extent does the community have a say?
For many, open source is about more than just the legal right to use and modify code—it’s also about culture, transparency, and governance.
Take Android, for example. While the core Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is licensed under Apache 2.0, Google's commercial Android versions are filled with proprietary apps and services. Technically, Android is open source, but Google retains control through agreements that prevent manufacturers from using forked versions. Unlike Kubernetes, which operates under an independent foundation with diverse contributors, Android’s roadmap lacks transparency and community input.
"Android is perhaps the most well-documented, legally open project," said Luis Villa, co-founder of Tidelift, during a panel at State of Open Con25 in London. "The licenses are exactly what you'd expect—but good luck getting a patch in or even knowing when the next release will be."
This highlights a fundamental issue: open source can be an illusion. Without true community agency, a project’s long-term viability is questionable. Many companies have changed licenses to protect commercial interests, raising concerns about the future of truly open software.
The AI Factor
These debates are now central to open source AI. China’s DeepSeek AI models, despite having an MIT license, leave questions about training data transparency. Similarly, Meta promotes its LLaMA models as open source, yet they come with commercial restrictions.
"I have concerns about how we define open source AI," Villa noted. "But one thing is clear—what Meta is doing with LLaMA is not open source."
Emily Omier, a consultant for open source businesses, argued that efforts to redefine open source reflect its growing influence. "The fact that people are trying to twist its meaning shows how powerful the open source brand has become," she said.
The Regulatory Push
Regulatory factors also play a role. The EU AI Act includes exemptions for "free and open source" AI systems—except those deemed a high risk. This could explain why companies are eager to reshape the definition of open source to fit their needs.
"Many players now want to redefine open source for branding and regulatory advantages, and that’s concerning," Villa warned.
Striking a Balance
While broader discussions on the "spirit" of open source are valid, maintaining clear legal definitions keeps the concept objective. How much community involvement is necessary for something to be truly open? Legally, limiting the definition to licensing makes sense.
Stefano Maffulli, OSI’s Executive Director, emphasized that licensing ensures measurable standards. "The point of definitions is to create criteria that can be objectively assessed," he told TechCrunch. "The global community and industry rely on the Open Source Definition—and now the Open Source AI Definition—as trusted benchmarks."
Posts
0 Comments