Open Source My Ass! -- The "Open Source" Label is a Marketing Trap, Not a Promise of Freedom
Open Source My Ass! -- The "Open Source" Label is a Marketing Trap, Not a Promise of Freedom
We need to be clear about what is happening here. The tech industry has successfully hijacked the term "open source" to confuse the public. They use Open Source as a marketing buzzword to suggest freedom, while delivering proprietary control. This is not about free software (which is about justice and user freedom); it is about the Open Source Initiative’s pragmatic, values-neutral approach that often ignores the ethical stakes.
Richard Stallman and the GNU project (https://www.gnu.org) have long warned that "open source" can be deceptive. It focuses on the development model (collaborative coding) rather than the user’s rights. When a company like Tencent or any other vendor says they are "Open Source," they are often lying by omission or using the trademark to gain popularity while imposing strict, proprietary-like restrictions.
Why "Open Source" is Often a Lie
The term Open Source (see GNU's "Words to Avoid" for why this label is problematic) implies openness, but it doesn’t guarantee the four essential freedoms of free software:
- Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
- Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works and change it.
- Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies.
- Freedom 3: The freedom to redistribute copies of your modified versions.
Many "Open Source" licenses (like the Apache 2.0, BSD, MIT, or proprietary "open core" licenses) allow these freedoms, but many don’t. The "Open Source" label is often used to market licenses that are more restrictive than proprietary ones, or at least as restrictive, because they lack the "copyleft" force of the GNU GPL.
The Deception of "Open Source" vs. Free Software
- Free Software is an ethical movement. It asks: "Does this software respect the user's freedom?"
- Open Source is a development methodology. It asks: "Can we build better software by sharing the source?"
The problem is that corporations use the Open Source label to get the best of both worlds. They get the free labor of the community (who fix bugs, add features, and test for free) while retaining the right to monetize, restrict, or control the software in ways that benefit them, not the users. They use the trademark to confuse users into thinking they have rights they actually don't.
Examples of Corporate Deception Using "Open Source"
The "Open Core" Model:
Companies like MongoDB, Elastic, and Confluent (Kafka) release their core software under "Open Source" licenses. However, they often change licenses to "BSL" (Business Source License) or "SSPL" (Server Side Public License) for newer, more popular versions. They market the initial release as "Open Source" to gain adoption, then switch to a proprietary-like license to control their customers. This is deceptive. It’s not free software because you don’t have the freedom to modify and redistribute the latest version under the same terms.The "Proprietary" Open Source License:
Look at licenses like the "Google Public License" or various "Community Licenses." They may claim to be "Open Source" compliant with the Open Source Definition, but they include restrictions on patents, or require attribution in ways that are burdensome, or limit the fields of use. These are proprietary licenses because they grant permission at the licensor’s discretion, not because they are inherent rights of the user.Cloud Provider Control:
Companies like AWS, Google, and Microsoft release "Open Source" versions of their proprietary tools. However, they often keep the real product proprietary, or release the "Open Source" version with limited functionality. They use the Open Source label to dominate the ecosystem, forcing users to build on their platform, which they then control via proprietary APIs and services. This is a predatory strategy masked as openness.
Why It Matters
The distinction is crucial. If you believe something is free software, you expect it to be free from corporate control. If you believe it is "Open Source," you might be fooled into thinking you have the same rights, when you actually have a license that can be revoked or restricted by the corporation.
The Open Source Initiative’s trademark is a marketing tool for corporations, not a guarantee of freedom for users. Free software is about freedom. Open Source is often about profit.
Jean Louis, Free Software Supporter