The True Meaning of Open Source: Beyond the License

The Nuances of Open Source Definitions

Discussions surrounding the definition of “open source” frequently conclude with reference to the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Software licensed with OSI-approved terms is generally accepted as open source.

However, complexities arise when considering the distinction between strict legal definitions and the underlying principles of open source. The debate between open source and proprietary software is filled with considerable subtlety.

For many, open source encompasses more than just the legal right to use and modify code; the surrounding culture, transparency, and governance are equally vital.

Android: A Case Study in Open Source

The Android operating system, as found on smartphones and tablets, is well-known. The Android Open Source Project (AOSP), released under the permissive Apache 2.0 license, allows anyone to access, modify, and adapt it for their own hardware.

Android largely meets the criteria of open source. Google has leveraged this in its defense against antitrust concerns, pointing to Amazon’s adaptation of Android for its Fire devices.

However, this overlooks Google’s “anti-fragmentation agreements” with hardware manufacturers, which limit their ability to utilize modified Android versions.

Unlike projects like Kubernetes, governed by an independent foundation with diverse contributions, Android remains under Google’s direct control, lacking substantial transparency regarding its roadmap or community input.

The Illusion of Open Source

Luis Villa, co-founder and general counsel at Tidelift, highlighted this issue during a panel discussion at State of Open Con25 in London. He stated that while Android’s licensing is impeccable, contributing patches or predicting release dates can be challenging.

This underscores a key point: open source can sometimes be deceptive. A lack of genuine independence can hinder meaningful participation in a project.

It also raises concerns about long-term sustainability, as demonstrated by numerous open source companies that have altered licenses to safeguard their commercial interests.

Governance and the Importance of Independence

Peter Zaitsev, founder of Percona, emphasized the importance of governance in the same panel discussion. He noted that a single corporation can readily change a license.

Dotan Horovits, open source evangelist at the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), echoed these concerns, suggesting that open source can “turn to the dark side.”

He observed that issues often emerge when a single-vendor project prioritizes its own business needs. This leads to the question: is vendor-owned open source inherently contradictory?

Horovits has been posing this question for several years, and its relevance continues to grow in 2025.

• Open Source Initiative (OSI): The authority on defining open source licenses.
• AOSP: Android Open Source Project, the open-source base of the Android OS.
• Apache 2.0 License: A permissive license commonly used for open-source software.
• Kubernetes: An open-source container orchestration system governed by an independent foundation.

The Impact of AI and Open Source Definitions

Discussions surrounding AI and open source are likely to continue, as the latter has become a central topic within the AI landscape.

The arrival of China’s DeepSeek generated significant attention, fueled by the enthusiasm for open source. Despite its models being licensed under MIT, which is generally considered open source, ambiguities persist regarding the training data and other elements.

Consequently, researchers at Hugging Face are endeavoring to develop a more transparent iteration of DeepSeek’s reasoning model.

Meta's Approach to Open Source LLMs

Meta has consistently promoted its commitment to open source with its Llama series of large language models (LLMs). However, Llama’s open source status is debatable, as the models incorporate commercial limitations.

“While I have reservations about the definition of open source AI, it’s evident that Llama’s approach doesn’t align with true open source principles,” Villa stated.

Emily Omier, a consultant specializing in open source businesses and host of the Business of Open Source podcast, observed that attempts to redefine “open source” demonstrate its considerable influence.

“The effort to distort the meaning of ‘open source’ highlights its inherent strength – people clearly value the concept,” Omier explained during the panel discussion.

Regulatory Influences and the Definition of Open Source

Regulatory considerations may be a significant factor in these debates. The EU AI Act includes specific provisions for “free and open source” AI systems, excluding those identified as presenting an “unacceptable risk.”

Villa suggests this regulatory landscape partially explains the motivation behind attempts to alter the definition of “open source.”

“Numerous entities are seeking to redefine ‘open source’ due to its established reputation and the implications of regulation, and this is a detrimental trend,” Villa emphasized.

Key Considerations

• The definition of open source AI is being challenged by various actors.
• Commercial restrictions can limit the true open source nature of models.
• Regulatory frameworks, such as the EU AI Act, influence the perception and application of open source.

Defining Open Source Through Licensing

Although compelling cases can be made for incorporating additional criteria that reflect the core principles of open source, maintaining clearly defined parameters – as established by a license – promotes simplicity and reduces ambiguity.

Determining the level of community engagement required for something to genuinely qualify as “open source” presents a challenge. From both a practical and legal standpoint, restricting the definition to the license itself is a sensible approach.

OSI's Perspective on Open Source

Stefano Maffulli, the executive director of the OSI, has noted that certain organizations and foundations emphasize concepts like “open design, community, and development.” However, these concepts are inherently philosophical in nature.

“The purpose of establishing definitions is to create measurable criteria,” Maffulli explained in a statement provided to TechCrunch. “Concentrating on licensing is the method by which this is achieved.”

He further emphasized that the global community and the industry have come to depend on the Open Source Definition, and now the Open Source AI Definition, as objective benchmarks they can trust.

The Importance of Objective Measures

• Clear licensing provides a concrete basis for evaluation.
• It avoids subjective interpretations of “openness.”
• It fosters reliability within the industry and the broader community.

By focusing on licensing, the OSI ensures a consistent and verifiable standard for what constitutes open source software and, increasingly, open source AI.