{"id":96999,"date":"2024-06-28T03:44:15","date_gmt":"2024-06-28T03:44:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.techrepublic.com\/?p=4247433"},"modified":"2024-06-28T03:44:15","modified_gmt":"2024-06-28T03:44:15","slug":"some-open-source-software-licences-are-only-open-ish-says-thoughtworks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cloudnewshub.com\/?p=96999","title":{"rendered":"Some Open Source Software Licences are Only \u2018Open-ish,\u2019 Says Thoughtworks"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

It has been estimated 90% of organisations use some form of open source software<\/a>, and if they needed to go and code it again themselves, it would cost USD $9 trillion<\/a>. This makes open source a huge global economic resource.<\/p>\n

However, some tools have shifted to commercial models in recent times. After years of growth through developer contribution and widespread uptake among users, they are monetising the end result \u2014 often to the chagrin of developer communities and dependent business users.<\/p>\n

Global technology consultancy Thoughtworks identified the trend in its most recent Technology Radar<\/a>. Australian Chief Technology Officer, Scott Shaw, said it is partially driven by a closer focus on financials in recent times, and organisations need to ensure they approach open source \u201cwith their eyes open.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/span>Some open source favourites have shifted to commercial licences<\/span><\/h2>\n

In April 2024, Thoughtworks noted a \u201cchurn in the previously serene landscape\u201d of open source. \u201cSeveral prominent tools have recently garnered bad press, when their maintainers switched \u2014 in several cases abruptly \u2014 from an open-source licence to a commercial model,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n

The trend has been building for some years, according to Shaw. While the tech industry has a common set of principles and a number of well understood open source licences governed by the Open Source Initiative, there has been a growing \u201cdivergence\u201d from that paradigm.<\/p>\n

Abrupt changes to open source licences<\/h3>\n

The first example are those companies that have changed the terms of their open source licence mid-stream. After building a developer community and onboarding large numbers of users who have integrated the software into workflows under the permissive standards of open source licences, there has been a move to clamp down on that, often linked to revenue.<\/p>\n

SEE: The 8 best open source project management software for 2024<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

While Thoughtworks wrote that \u201cwe have no problem paying for software and are fine with the common model of commercial licences for additional functionality,\u201d it added that \u201cwe find it problematic when core functionality of a widely used tool is suddenly put behind a paywall, especially when an ecosystem has developed around the tool.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Semantic diffusion\u2019 in open source<\/h3>\n

There has also been a blurring in what open source means, with Thoughtworks observing \u201csoftware that proclaims to be open source, yet fundamental capabilities only appear after consumers pay subscriptions or other charges.\u201d In some cases, an open source project may only distribute code, not builds, increasing the burden for organisations using it on premise.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne example is some large language models that are being loosely referred to as open source that are not; they are open in some way, but they don\u2019t meet the principles of open source, certainly not the way the OSI defines them,\u201d Shaw said.<\/p>\n

<\/span>Docker, Terraform and Llama 3 diverge from pure open source<\/span><\/h2>\n

Thoughtworks said there have been several examples of shifts to commercial licences or \u201copen-ish\u201d licences emerging. Three examples are developer containerisation software Docker, Hashicorp\u2019s Terraform, and Meta\u2019s newly released LLM Lllama 3.<\/p>\n

Docker<\/h3>\n

Docker is open source software used by developers to automate the deployment of applications inside containers. It became the basis for most application distribution and integral to software delivery, with 55% of developers using it daily. Docker also had a convenient Docker Desktop, allowing developers to run Docker locally on a machine to perform testing.<\/p>\n

In 2021, and effective in 2022, Docker changed its licensing<\/a>. While remaining free for small businesses with fewer than 250 employees and less than USD $10 million in revenue, larger enterprises using it professionally needed to pay for a Pro, Team or Business membership, meaning organisations were no longer in compliance if they did not pay fees to Docker.<\/p>\n

Terraform<\/h3>\n

Terraform from Hashicorp is one of the most popular and effective infrastructure as code tools for safely and predictably provisioning and managing infrastructure in any cloud. However, Hashicorp caused an outcry in the open source community when it made the decision to shift from a Mozilla Public Licence v2.0 to a Business Source Licence<\/a>, because of its widespread use as an open source software supporting DevOps operations and companies.<\/p>\n

SEE: The 5 best open source CRMs for 2024<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The company explained its decision, primarily, as being to protect its interests from competitors using Terraform to compete with Hashicorp, who can now utilise commercial licences. This did not placate the whole open source community; some were galvanized to start OpenTofu, a community-driven project that aims to create a fork of Terraform and maintain it as an open-source tool, in line with the company\u2019s previous commitments to open source.<\/p>\n

Llama 3<\/h3>\n

Meta\u2019s Llama 3<\/a> is being received as a powerful LLM model, Shaw said. However, in terms of its open source credentials, the model has open weights but does not follow other OSI principles like the ability to examine source code and complete unrestricted redistribution. Meta\u2019s Llama 3 requires the payment of licensing fees based on user numbers for the use of weights.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you ask Meta, they call it an openly available model<\/a>. That is honest, but the term open source gets very loosely applied to these things, and I think it\u2019s important for people to understand openly available or free doesn\u2019t necessarily imply open source. I think this is sometimes missed; people don\u2019t completely understand what degree of openness a particular model might have.\u201d<\/p>\n