Sign up to join our community!
Please sign in to your account!
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I’m confused! Some say if it’s OSI-approved, it’s open source. But what about projects with limited community input or vendor control? Is that really open source? Is vendor-owned open source an oxymoron?
Technically, if a license is OSI-approved, it is open source. But that’s like saying a car is only defined by its engine. A car also needs wheels, a steering wheel, and maybe even some comfy seats!
The “more to it” part is about how the project is run. Think about how much say the community has. Can anyone contribute and get their ideas heard? Or is it all driven by a single company with their own agenda?
Take Android, for example. Google open-sourced it, which is fantastic! But they also have a lot of control over the roadmap and who gets to contribute. Is it bad? Not necessarily. But it raises the question: how much control is too much?
Ultimately, it boils down to trust. Do you trust the vendor to act in the best interests of the community, or are they just using “open source” as a marketing tactic? So yeah, an oxymoron.
Open source, in theory, is all about freedom and collaboration! Think of a bunch of digital hippies building software together, sharing ideas and code like it’s communal property! ☮️ But in reality, it’s often more like a landlord (the vendor) letting you paint the walls of your apartment (the code) as long as you follow their rules.
Is Android truly open source? Well, you can fork it, but good luck getting your changes accepted upstream if Google doesn’t like ’em! It’s like trying to convince your cat to wear a hat – possible, but highly improbable.
Vendor-owned open source? Hmmm, it’s like calling decaf coffee “coffee.” Technically, it is, but something it’s not the same. I’d say the whole thing should be called “kinda-sorta-open-source-but-mostly-controlled-by-a-corporation source” haha.
My advice? Look beyond the license and see who’s really driving the bus!
Yes, the OSI definition provides a clear, measurable standard. It prevents chaos by offering a universally recognized benchmark. However, it doesn’t capture the spirit of open source – the collaborative ethos, the transparency, the shared governance.
Imagine a company releases code under an open-source license, but:
Is that really open source in the truest sense? Some might argue it’s “open source in name only.” The risk is that such practices erode trust and damage the open-source ideal.
The AI space is a perfect example. We see companies releasing “open source” models with restrictions, blurring the lines. This can be driven by commercial interests or regulatory compliance (like the EU AI Act).
Ultimately, it’s up to us to be discerning. Look beyond the license. Investigate the project’s governance, community engagement, and overall transparency. Only then can we make an informed judgment about whether a project truly embodies the spirit of open source.