Why the spirit of open source means much more than a license

The arguments on what is and is not “open source” are often resolved by referring to the open source initiative (Osi): If software is available under a rubber license stamped as “open source” by the formal OSI “definitionThen, this software is open source.

But muddy waters when you enter the nuts and bolts of legal definitions in relation to “the spirit” of what the open source really means. Indeed, there are important shades in the Open source software debate against owner: Has an “open source company” spoke its project by sliding the basic features behind a commercial paid wall? How much is there in the development of the project? And what is the direct contribution that the “community” really has in a given project?

For many, open source does not only concern the legal capacity to use and modify the code; The culture, transparency and governance that surround it is essential.

Everyone knows the Google flavor version of Android that ships on smartphones and tablets, filled with a range of applications and services. The underlying Android open source project (AOSP), released under a Apache 2.0-Licenseis available for anyone to access, “fork” and modify his own material projects.

Android, almost any definition, is about as open source as possible. And Google used this fact in its defense against anti-competition criticism, noting that Amazon has reappropriate Android for its own range of Fire brand devices. But all this ignores separately “Anti-fragmentation agreements“Google has signed with equipment manufacturers that prevent them from using Android forked versions. And unlike something like Kubernetes who is under an independent foundation With a diversified range of business and community contributors, Android is under the direct control of Google without great transparency on the roadmap or the community contribution.

“Android, in the sense of licenses, is perhaps the most well documented” thing “, perfectly open than there is”, ” Luis Villaco-founder and general lawyer at Tremblingsaid in a round table at the Open CON25 statement in London this week. “All licenses are exactly as you want – but good luck to get a patch, and good luck to determine when the next version is even.”

This happens at the node of the debate: open source can be a kind of illusion. A lack of real independence can mean a lack of agency for those who wish to get involved properly in a project. He can also raise questions about the long -term viability of a project, as evidenced by the countless open source companies that have changed the licenses to protect their commercial interests.

“If you think of the practical accessibility of open source, it goes beyond the license, right?” Peter ZaitsevThe founder of the Open Source Percona database service company said in the round table. “Governance is very important, because if it is a single company, they can change a license like” that “.

These feelings were taken up in a conversation separated by DNATO HorovitsOpen Source evangelist at the native Cloud Computing Foundation (CNCF), where he thought about the open source “Turning to the Dark Side”. He noted that in most cases, problems arise when a single seller project decides to make changes according to its own commercial needs among other pressures. “Which raises the question, Is the open source belonging to the sellers? “Said Horovits.” I have been asking this question for a few years, and in 2025, this question is more relevant than ever. “

The AI ​​factor

These debates will not be anywhere as soon as the open source has become a major focal point in the field of AI.

China Deepseek arrived by striking At the back of the open source media threshing, and although the models of the MIT of the models are very recognized as open source, there are black holes around training data among other components. That’s why Hugging facing researchers try to create A even “more open” version of the Deepseek reasoning model.

Meta, meanwhile, has long made her open source horn with regard to her Blade Great language models (LLMS), even if Llama is not open source According to most estimates – the models, although perhaps more “open” than others, have commercial restrictions.

“I have my baffles and my concerns about the definition of open source AI, but it is really clear that what Llama does is not open source,” said Villa.

Emily OmieRA consultant for open source companies and the host of the Business of Open Source Podcastadded that such attempts to “corrupt” the meaning behind “the open source” testifies to its inherent power.

“This shows how strong the brand of open source is – the fact that people try to corrupt it, means that people care,” said Omier during the round table.

However, much of this may be for regulatory reasons. THE I have the act Has a special feature for “free and open source” AI systems (apart from those deemed to pose a “Unacceptable risk “). And Villa says it somehow explains why a business might want to rewrite the book of rules on what “open source” really means.

“There are many actors at the moment which, because of the marked capital [of open source] And the regulatory implications, want to change the definition, and it’s terrible, “said Villa.

Erasing parameters

Although there are clear arguments to apply additional criteria that integrate “the mind” of what open source is intended to be completely, having clear parameters – as defined by a license – maintains things simple and less subject to nuanced subjectivity.

How much community commitment would be necessary for something to be really “open source”? At the practical and legal level, the maintenance of the definition limited to the license is logical.

Stefano MaffulliThe executive director of the OSI, said that, even if certain organizations and foundations are based on ideas around “open conception, community and development”, they are all fundamentally philosophical concepts.

“The aim of having definitions is to have criteria that can be noted and focus on licenses is how it is accomplished,” Maffulli said in a statement published in Techcrunch. “The global community and the industry have become on the open source definition and now Definition of Open Source as objective measures they can count on. »»