The term “open source” evokes thoughts of collaboration, freedom, and innovation. It refers to software whose source code is freely available for anyone to inspect, modify, and enhance. Historically, open source has been a community-driven movement, emphasizing transparency and shared knowledge. However, in recent years, big corporations have jumped on the open-source bandwagon—not always for the right reasons. While they use the term to boost credibility and attract developers, the reality is often quite different. This post explores how some companies are misusing the “open source” label to further their own interests, distorting the spirit of the open-source movement.

What Does “Open Source” Really Mean?

At its core, open source software (OSS) refers to programs whose source code is made freely available for use, modification, and distribution. The original intent behind open-source licensing was to promote openness, collaboration, and shared improvements, with the benefits going back to the wider community. Examples of true open-source software include Linux, Mozilla Firefox, and LibreOffice—projects that were born out of and continue to thrive through community contribution.

How Big Companies Are Misusing the Open Source Label

1. Closed Contribution Models
   • Many large corporations release parts of their software under an “open-source” license, but heavily restrict how developers can contribute. They might offer the code for viewing or limited modification, but the actual development process remains controlled by an internal team, giving outsiders little to no influence on the project’s future direction.
   • Example: A tech giant might release a version of their software as “open source,” but critical features and updates are still locked behind proprietary licensing, leaving developers with a limited sandbox to play in.
2. Dual Licensing Models
   • Some companies employ a strategy known as dual licensing. They release a basic version of their software as open source while keeping advanced, enterprise-grade features behind paywalls or proprietary licenses. This leads to a situation where the “open source” version is little more than bait, drawing in developers and users who are then funneled towards paid versions of the software.
   • Example: A cloud service provider might release an “open-source” database platform, but key performance-enhancing features like replication or clustering are only available in the paid edition.
3. “Open Washing”
   • Open washing refers to when a company brands a product or service as open source to leverage the goodwill and credibility of the term, without truly adhering to its principles. This misleads users and developers into believing they are supporting an open project when, in reality, the company maintains full control.
   • Example: Some platforms claim to be open-source but don’t accept external contributions, or they keep critical decision-making, roadmaps, and updates behind closed doors. This limits the community’s ability to guide the project or ensure that its development stays aligned with their needs.
4. Cloud Monopolization of Open Source Projects
   • Cloud providers are often guilty of taking truly open-source projects, building commercial services around them, and monetizing them without giving back. This undermines the original developers and maintainers who receive little compensation for their work. The open-source software ends up fueling multi-billion dollar cloud services, while the creators struggle to keep their projects sustainable.
   • Example: Amazon Web Services (AWS) has faced criticism for offering proprietary services based on open-source technologies like Elasticsearch, rebranding them as AWS Open Distro for Elasticsearch, with little direct contribution to the project’s original developers.
5. Shifting to Proprietary Models After Gaining Traction
   • Some companies initially start projects as open-source to gain traction and community support, only to switch to proprietary models once the software becomes popular. This approach is a bait-and-switch tactic that leaves contributors and users feeling betrayed.
   • Example: Some startups have gained popularity by marketing their software as open source, only to later shift to a commercial, closed-source model once they secure a large user base or raise significant funding.

The Impact of Misusing the Open-Source Label

When large corporations misuse the open-source label, several harmful effects ripple through the ecosystem:

• Stifling True Open-Source Innovation: Big companies with deep pockets can dominate the open-source conversation, drowning out genuine, community-driven projects. This creates an uneven playing field, where independent developers and smaller companies can’t compete.
• Erosion of Trust: Developers who contribute to what they believe is an open-source project often find themselves disillusioned when they realize they have no real influence or access to critical parts of the code. This leads to a loss of trust in the concept of open source altogether.
• Commercialization of Community Work: Open-source projects often rely on community contributions and volunteer work. When big companies monetize these projects without giving back, they profit off the hard work of contributors, undermining the sustainability of the original project.

True Open Source Still Thrives—But Needs Support

Despite these challenges, true open-source communities are still alive and well. Projects like Linux, LibreOffice, and even newer ones like Jitsi (an open-source video conferencing solution) demonstrate that collaborative, transparent development is still possible. However, for open source to continue thriving, it requires support from both individual contributors and ethical businesses that respect the original ethos.

Conclusion

The misuse of the term “open source” by large companies distorts the core principles of the movement. While some corporations do contribute positively to the ecosystem, others are using the label as a marketing tactic, undermining the values of transparency, collaboration, and community. For the true spirit of open source to survive, both developers and consumers need to be vigilant and support projects that remain faithful to the original ethos of openness and freedom.