The term "open source" is often associated with freedom, collaboration, and community-driven development. However, the reality is that the concept of open source is more nuanced than a simple license agreement. A recent panel discussion at the State of Open Con25 in London highlighted the complexities of open source, with experts arguing that licenses alone are insufficient to ensure true openness and community involvement.

At the heart of the debate is the question of what constitutes "open source." The Open Source Initiative (OSI) provides a formal definition of open source, which is widely accepted as the benchmark for open source software. However, experts argue that this definition is limited, as it only considers the legal ability to use and modify code, without taking into account the culture, transparency, and governance surrounding the project.

The example of Android, an open source operating system, illustrates this point. While Android is available under a permissive Apache 2.0 license, its development is controlled by Google, with limited transparency and community input. This raises questions about the true openness of the project, despite meeting the OSI's definition of open source.

Luis Villa, co-founder and general counsel at Tidelift, noted that Android is "perhaps the most well-documented, perfectly open 'thing' that there is," but added that "good luck getting a patch into that, and good luck figuring out when the next release even is." This highlights the limitations of relying solely on licenses to determine openness.

Another key aspect of open source is governance. Peter Zaitsev, founder of open source database services company Percona, emphasized the importance of governance, stating that "if it's a single corporation, they can change a license like 'that.'" This raises concerns about the long-term viability of open source projects controlled by a single vendor.

The debate around open source is particularly relevant in the context of AI, where the lines between open source and proprietary software are becoming increasingly blurred. China's DeepSeek, for example, has been touted as an open source AI model, but its MIT license has been criticized for lacking transparency around training data and other components.

Meta's Llama-branded large language models (LLMs) have also been marketed as open source, despite having commercial restrictions that limit their openness. Luis Villa argued that Llama is not open source by most estimations, and that attempts to "corrupt" the meaning of open source are a testament to its inherent power.

Regulatory reasons may also be driving the push for more flexible definitions of open source. The EU AI Act, for example, has a special carve-out for "free and open source" AI systems, which may incentivize companies to redefine what it means to be open source.

Despite the complexities and nuances of open source, the OSI's Stefano Maffulli emphasized the importance of clear parameters, stating that "the point of having definitions is to have criteria that can be scored, and focusing on licensing is how that is accomplished." However, as the debate around open source continues to evolve, it is clear that licenses alone are insufficient to ensure true openness and community involvement.

In conclusion, the concept of open source is more complex than a simple license agreement. As the technology landscape continues to evolve, it is essential to re-examine what it means to be open source, and to consider the broader implications of governance, transparency, and community involvement.