The tech industry has long witnessed a tug-of-war between open source and proprietary software. This dynamic came into sharp focus over the past year, as chaos surrounding proprietary platforms drove users to explore open source alternatives. However, challenges within the open source ecosystem also revealed its vulnerabilities, further complicating the debate.
Proprietary Platforms Under Fire
Instances of instability in proprietary technologies have frequently prompted users to seek refuge in open source solutions. A notable example is the turmoil surrounding X (formerly Twitter) after Elon Musk’s acquisition. Discontent with the platform’s direction led many to explore alternatives like Mastodon and Bluesky.
Similarly, OpenAI faced a major upheaval in November when its co-founders, including CEO Sam Altman, temporarily departed. This disruption caused businesses reliant on OpenAI’s GPT models to reconsider their dependence on a single proprietary platform. Open source alternatives such as Meta’s Llama models gained traction during this period of uncertainty.
Even Google acknowledged the growing influence of open source AI. A leaked internal memo revealed concerns that open source AI had surpassed proprietary models, stating, “We have no moat, and neither does OpenAI.”
Other industries experienced similar shifts. Adobe’s failed $20 billion acquisition of Figma spurred interest in Penpot, an open source design tool. Likewise, Unity’s controversial fee structure led developers to explore Godot, an open source game engine benefiting from a newly formed commercial backing.
Challenges Within the Open Source Ecosystem
While these examples highlight the appeal of open source software during times of proprietary chaos, they also expose internal struggles within the open source community. A case in point is HashiCorp’s decision to change its Terraform software license from an open source model to a more restrictive Business Source License (BSL). This move aimed to prevent third-party vendors from profiting off Terraform without contributing back but created uncertainty for its users.
In response, a faction of developers forked Terraform into a new project called OpenTofu, governed by the Linux Foundation. The OpenTofu manifesto criticized HashiCorp’s decision for introducing legal risks for businesses relying on Terraform.
HashiCorp is not alone in making such changes. Sentry transitioned from an open source BSD license to BSL in 2019 and later introduced the Functional Source License (FSL) to balance freedom with commercial protection. Similarly, Element altered the licensing for core components of Matrix, a decentralized communication protocol, to mitigate exploitation by commercial entities while ensuring contributions back to the ecosystem.
Balancing Ideals and Commercial Realities
These licensing changes underscore a recurring challenge: how can companies embrace open source principles without compromising their business interests? Sentry’s Chad Whitacre highlighted this dilemma, noting that traditional open source companies often struggle against larger competitors with more resources.
Element’s decision to switch Matrix components to a less permissive license was driven by similar concerns. The company argued that while Matrix had become widely successful, Element bore the brunt of maintenance costs while other businesses profited without contributing back. The license change forced companies using Matrix to either share their code or pay for a commercial license.
The Dual-Edged Sword of Open Source
The events of the past year illustrate both the strengths and weaknesses of open source software. On one hand, it offers an escape from vendor lock-in and provides alternatives when proprietary platforms falter. On the other hand, businesses built on open source foundations can alter terms unexpectedly, creating risks for users and developers alike.
This dynamic is not new but has become increasingly pronounced as reliance on software grows across industries. The eternal struggle between open source and proprietary software continues to shape the tech landscape—highlighting both its potential and its pitfalls.
Read more such articles from our Newsletter here.
