Keep Open-source Open

Free and open-source software (FOSS) has been a crucial part of the technological landscape for years. It has enabled developers to collaborate, share knowledge, and build upon each other's work, leading to the creation of innovative and reliable software that can be freely used and distributed. However, despite its many benefits, there is a tendency among large tech companies to limit the ability of open source software to function optimally.

One of the primary reasons why open-source development model has gained popularity is its ability to promote collaboration and shared ownership. Unlike proprietary software, which is developed and controlled by a single company, open source software allows developers from all over the world to contribute to its development, debugging and improvement. This leads to faster development cycles, improved quality, and increased reliability, as multiple pairs of eyes can identify and fix errors more effectively. Additionally, open source software is often more secure because the code is visible to all, allowing experts to identify vulnerabilities and patch them promptly.

Open source software also has the advantage because of its cost-effectiveness. Since the software is free to use and distribute, companies can save significant amounts of money on licensing fees. Moreover, the open source model encourages community involvement, which can lead to a more active and engaged user base, resulting in more feedback, feature requests and bug reports. This can help software developers improve their products and services, ultimately benefiting both the company and its customers.

However, despite these advantages, some companies are now limiting the capabilities of open-source licensing models. They are doing this is by introducing restrictive licenses that prevent developers from modifying the code or using it for commercial purposes. For example, some companies are adopting permissive licenses that allow developers to modify the code but only for non-commercial use cases. Others are using copyleft licenses that require derivative works to be released under the same license, effectively preventing developers from creating proprietary versions of the software.

Other tactics companies are using to limit the potential of open source software is by creating closed-source forks of popular open source projects. These forks are designed to be compatible with the original open source software but are not subject to the same licensing terms. As a result, developers who want to use the closed-source fork must pay licensing fees or agree to restrictive terms of service. This approach undermines the open source model and limits the ability of developers to collaborate and share knowledge.

Some companies are even acquiring successful, open source projects and then limiting their functionality or integrating them into their proprietary products. For instance, Google acquired the popular open source machine learning library TensorFlow and later integrated it into its cloud computing platform. While TensorFlow remains open source, Google's integration of it into its proprietary services limit the ability of other companies to compete with Google's cloud services. Similarly, Microsoft acquired GitHub, the largest host of open source projects, and has been accused of using its ownership to favor its own interests over those of the wider open source community.

The trend of limiting open source software capabilities is concerning, it goes against the principles of collaboration and shared ownership that have made open source software, as well as the developer community involved, so successful. By imposing restrictions on the use and distribution of open source software, companies are effectively creating barriers for smaller players and stifling innovation. This can eventually lead to a situation where a few large corporations dominate the technology landscape, leaving little room for competition or diversity. This wouldn’t be the first industry that this had occurred in. Think of the cell phone and pharmaceutical market.

By limiting the potential of open source software and its creation, the negative consequences will impact society as a whole. Open source software has enabled people from all over the world to access and contribute to technology, regardless of their background, financial means, or even limitations due to political meddling. By limiting the ability of open source software to function optimally, companies are effectively shutting out marginalized communities and perpetuating inequality.

It is essential for policymakers, regulators, and the broader technology industry to take note of these developments and work toward preserving the integrity and potential of open source software. Governments can pass laws and regulations that protect the open source model and prevent companies from imposing restrictive licenses or forking popular open source projects for their own benefit. Regulatory bodies can also monitor mergers and acquisitions involving open source projects to ensure that they do not harm competition or stifle innovation.

Ultimately, the success of open source software depends on the willingness of companies and governments to uphold the principles of collaboration and shared ownership. But none of that is possible without the consumers making their voices heard by contacting these state or federal officials, along with the tech giants that are slowly tightening their grasp on the market.