drewdevault.com

Open-source-matters.md (5419B)

---
title: The phrase "open source" (still) matters
date: 2022-09-16
---
In 1988, "Resin Identification Codes" were introduced by the plastic industry.
These look exactly like the recycling symbol ♺, which is not trademarked or
regulated, except that a number is enclosed within the triangle. These symbols
simply identify what kind of plastic was used. The vast majority of plastic is
non-recyclable, but has one of these symbols on it to suggest otherwise. This is
a deceptive business practice which exploits the consumer's understanding of the
recycling symbol to trick them into buying more plastic products.
The meaning of the term "open source" is broadly understood to be defined by the
Open Source Initiative's [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd),
the "OSD". Under this model, open source has enjoyed a tremendous amount of
success, such that virtually all software written today incorporates open source
components.
The main advantage of open source, to which much of this success can be
attributed, is that it is a product of many hands. In addition to the work of
its original authors, open source projects generally accept code contributions
from anyone who would offer them. They also enjoy numerous indirect benefits,
through the large community of Linux distros which package and ship the
software, or people who write docs or books or blog posts about it, or the many
open source dependencies it is likely built on top of.
Under this model, the success of an open source project is not entirely
attributable to its publisher, but to both the publisher and the community which
exists around the software. The software does not belong to its publisher, but
to its community. I mean this not only in a moral sense, but also in a legal
sense: every contributor to an open source project retains their copyright and
the project's ownership is held collectively between its community of
contributors.[^cla]
[^cla]: Except when a CLA is involved. A CLA is an explicit promise that the
  steward of an open source project will pull the rug out later and make the
  project proprietary. *Never sign a CLA*. Don't ask contributors to sign one,
  either: consider the [DCO][dco] instead.
[dco]: https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html
The OSD takes this into account when laying out the conditions for
commercialization of the software. An argument for exclusive commercialization
of software by its publishers can be made when the software is the result of
investments from that publisher alone, but this is not so for open source.
Because it is the product of its community as a whole, the community enjoys the
right to commercialize it, without limitation. This is a fundamental,
non-negotiable part of the open source definition.
However, we often see the odd company or organization trying to forward an
unorthodox definition of the "open source". Generally, their argument goes
something like this: "open" is just an adjective, and "source" comes from
"source code", so "open source" just means source code you can read, right?
This argument is wrong,[^wrong] but it usually conceals the speaker's real
motivations: they want a commercial monopoly over their project.[^nondisc] Their
real reason is "I should be able to make money from open source, but you
shouldn't". An argument for an unorthodox definition of "open source" from this
perspective is a form of [motivated reasoning][motivated].
[^wrong]: This footnote used to explain why this argument is incorrect, but
  after five paragraphs I decided to save it for another time, like when the
  peanut gallery on Hacker News makes some form of this argument in the comments
  on this article.
[^nondisc]: Sometimes these arguments have more to do with the
  non-discrimination clause of the OSD. I have a
  [different set of arguments](https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/public-inbox/%3CC125C6RFZ9JQ.2PYJMAKMD2F8A%40homura%3E)
  for this situation.
[motivated]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
Those making this argument have good reason to believe that they will enjoy more
business success if they get away with it. The open source brand is incredibly
strong — one of the most successful brands in the entire software
industry. Leveraging that brand will drive interest to their project, especially
if, on the surface, it looks like it fits the bill (generally by being <abbr
title="The appropriate term for software whose source code is available to the public, but which does not otherwise meet the Open Source Definition">source available</abbr>).
When you get down to it, this behavior is dishonest and anti-social. It
leverages the brand of open source, whose success has been dependent on the OSD
and whose brand value is associated with the user's understanding of open
source, but does not provide the same rights. The deception is motivated by
selfish reasons: to withhold those rights from the user for their own exclusive
use. This is wrong.
You can publish software under any terms that you wish, with or without
commercial rights, with or without source code, whatever &mdash; it's your
right. However, if it's not open source, it's wrong to call it open source.
There are better terms &mdash; "source available", "[fair code][fair]", etc. If
you describe your project appropriately, whatever the license may be, then I
wish you nothing but success.
[fair]: https://faircode.io/