Proposal to Clarify the Spirit and Purpose of the Open Source Definition

[shu]

I’ve been an OSS contributor and maintainer for 10 years. During that time, I’ve repeatedly explained the necessity and value of continuing to contribute to OSS, even though it incurs costs as a member of a company. However, these explanations have not really taken hold. This is because the free-rider mentality is still deeply rooted.

So, three years ago, on September 3, 2022, I noticed and sent a message about the challenges that in-house contributors face in for-profit organizations. It was where the Open Source Definition (OSD) is sometimes understood only as a license compliance checklist. This narrow interpretation often fosters a free-rider mentality, where companies think “as long as we follow the OSD and licenses, we owe nothing more.”

Since then, I have continued observing and discussing this issue, and I see that the situation has only become more important:

• The global adoption of OSS has deepened, but in many organizations, contribution is still undervalued compared to usage.
• Security incidents (e.g., supply chain vulnerabilities) have revealed the risks of a pure free-rider approach.
• The OSPO movement (led by LF, TODO Group, and OSPO++) has made progress, but in organizations where the OSD is seen as the ultimate reference, contributions are not recognized as essential.
• Even with the implementation of the CRA, there are still companies in countries that believe it does not apply to them because they are not in the EU.

I believe this gap comes from the fact that the OSD, while powerful and trusted, does not explicitly and firstly describe why it was created—namely, to promote open collaboration and innovation. This purpose can be found in your own history page, where “open source” was coined not only to increase adoption, but also to advocate for the superiority of open development, and to encourage engaged communities. However, this will dramatically reduce the number of people who dig deeper beyond the OSD page.

Therefore, I would like to kindly propose:

1. Add an introductory statement to the OSD (or its official explanation) clarifying its original spirit and purpose—promoting open collaboration, community participation, and innovation.
2. Provide multilingual summaries of this purpose, so that non-English-native communities can understand OSS not just as “free to use,” but as “valuable to co-create.”

I sincerely believe this clarification will:

• Help reduce the free-rider mentality in corporations.
• Support OSPOs and advocates worldwide.
• Empower contributors who struggle to explain the value of their work inside organizations.

In 2022, I closed my message with the wish: “Could you describe the purpose for which the OSD was created?”
Now, three years later, I renew this request as a concrete proposal to strengthen the global understanding of open source.

@stefano This topic was submitted previously, and I’d like to start a discussion now.

Thanks!

[shujisado]

I understand your desire to add educational supplements to the Open Source Definition (OSD) for purposes such as promoting contribution. However, I believe that doing so risks turning the OSD—which has guaranteed a minimal and neutral standard of freedom—into a vehicle for overlaying it with “spirit” or ideology. The OSD is, and should remain, a minimal and neutral standard for assessing license compliance; its function is a testable rule set. If we mix personal values or codes of conduct into it, the objectivity of that standard will be undermined.

For example, suppose a preamble aimed at encouraging contribution were added to the OSD. That would open the door to claims such as “merely free-riding on the results of Open Source development is contrary to the spirit of the OSD,” importing spirit-based interpretations into judgments about what is or isn’t open source. Many may feel that is a good thing, but since 1998 I have consistently argued that open source may be free-ridden upon and even used for bad purposes. That may look old-fashioned to you, but it is one of the reasons our community grew.

I understand the world you want, but it is something that must never be incorporated into the OSD. If the OSI were to prepare some separate auxiliary document, including it there could be acceptable; nevertheless, any attempt to place it into the OSD itself would likely meet with substantial opposition.

Moreover, encouraging contribution is the domain of OSPOs. As I see it, spreading what you advocate is the role of the TODO Group, the consortium of OSPOs. Work through the TODO Group and the Linux Foundation would likely be more effective for your objectives.

[nick]

This is an interesting discussion and I agree with many points raised here.

The OSAID does have a preamble which to some extent explicitly outlines open collaboration, community participation, and innovation as goals:

Open Source has demonstrated that massive benefits accrue to everyone after removing the barriers to learning, using, sharing and improving software systems. These benefits are the result of using licenses that adhere to the Open Source Definition. For AI, society needs at least the same essential freedoms of Open Source to enable AI developers, deployers and end users to enjoy those same benefits: autonomy, transparency, frictionless reuse and collaborative improvement.

At the same time, as highlighted by @shujisado -san, the OSD has guaranteed a minimal and neutral standard of freedom.

There have been several attempts to incorporate ethical restrictions and collaborative obligations to “Open Source” along these past 25+ years. The OSI has not shied away from engaging in these conversations, and in fact we have even published a research about Delayed Open Source Publication and BUSL (Business Source License) in 2024 to highlight how some companies have followed this strategy to restrict freedoms temporarily as a way to inhibit “free riders” and make their projects more “sustainable.”

The fact that Open Source sets a minimal and neutral standard does not mean that each individual project or company making use of these projects cannot build on top of this and establish higher standards. Many projects like Python or Kubernetes set higher standards on top of the OSD, such as embracing an open governance model and promoting community diversity and inclusiveness. Also, many companies and even governments have published their own “Open Source Manifesto.” OSPOs play a fundamental role there.

Finally, I would like to recommend this blog post which delves into these questions.

[shu]

@shujisado @nick Thank you for your comments!

After 25 years, technology has advanced dramatically, and with the emergence of source code sharing systems such as GitHub, I recognize that there has been an evolution from the original method of “each one creating their own derivative” to the method of “everyone building one thing together,” and that this method has become widely spread.

At the same time, I believe that the meaning and value of the term “open source” have also come to be recognized in an advanced form.

When people ask, “What is open source?”, the very first thing, or at least something they always refer to, is the OSD. I also believe that it still holds unchanged value even after 25 years. However, there are many people who, when looking at the OSD and the list of corresponding licenses, recognize that there is nothing more, and do not try to understand more deeply. There are probably many people who do not even look at the annotated OSD.

As Sado-san says, the enlightenment of further values, governance, and best practices may be the mission of TODO or the OSPO Alliance (though OSPO++ seems to have disappeared), and not the mission of the OSD.

In understanding open source, the OSD, which defined the term, is an indispensable historical preface, and its simplicity is also a wonderful thing. However, it can also be said that the OSD has not caught up with new values and methods. I think the term “Open Source” no longer refers solely to “the distribution terms” as stated in the OSD Introduction.

So, I hope that you will show by yourselves that there is now also “And more…” beyond that. The annotated OSD also continues to hold great value, but it cannot be called new, so it might be good enough if it takes the form of recommending reference to TODO or the OSPO Alliance.

Alternatively, it may be a good idea to change the Open Source Definition to a title with more appropriate scope, such as Open Source Terms of Distribution.

I do not wish to exclude free riders, nor do I wish to make contributions obligatory. The freedom to use and to modify freely is the very origin, but it must be strongly asserted that we must not forget that people gather there, that maintainers, contributors, and supporters form and sustain communities. It is precisely the OSD, which defined the term “open source,” that I strongly wish would declare that it does not end with only the OSD and the list of corresponding licenses.

I would be grateful if you could recognize that by not doing so, people with only shallow understanding up to the OSD or the license list may obstruct those who wish to move further forward.