The Shifting Landscape of Open Source Licensing: From Contribution to Commercialization

In recent years, the open source software community has witnessed a notable shift in licensing strategies. Tech giants and startups alike are increasingly adopting more restrictive open source licenses or even transitioning to closed source models. This trend has sparked debates about the future of open source and the delicate balance between community contribution and commercial interests.

The Rise of Restrictive Open Source Licenses

One of the most talked-about developments in this space is the growing popularity of the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL). Unlike more permissive licenses like MIT or Apache 2.0, AGPL requires users who modify the software and run it as a service to release their changes publicly.

Several companies have turned to AGPL as a means to encourage contributions while protecting their commercial interests. MongoDB, for instance, switched to the Server Side Public License (SSPL) in 2018, which is essentially a modified version of AGPL. The move was prompted by concerns that cloud providers were offering MongoDB as a service without contributing back to the core product.

The Mixed License Approach

Some companies are opting for a mixed license strategy, maintaining different licenses for different parts of their software ecosystem. This approach allows them to keep core components open while monetizing specific features or services.

Confluent, the company behind Apache Kafka, adopted this strategy in 2018. While keeping the core Kafka project under the Apache 2.0 license, they placed some of their proprietary features under the Confluent Community License, which restricts the software's use as a competing managed service.

From Open to Closed: The Terraform Controversy

Perhaps one of the most controversial moves in recent memory is HashiCorp's decision to change Terraform's license from Mozilla Public License v2.0 to the Business Source License (BSL). This shift, announced in August 2023, effectively transitioned Terraform from open source to source-available software.

HashiCorp cited the need to build a sustainable business model as the primary reason for this change. However, the decision was met with significant backlash from the community, leading to the creation of OpenTF, a community-driven fork of Terraform.

Red Hat's Licensing Saga

Red Hat, long considered a champion of open source, has also made headlines with its licensing decisions. In 2023, the company announced changes to how it distributes Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) source code, limiting access to paying customers and partners.

This move sparked controversy within the open source community, leading to the creation of alternative distributions like AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. The situation highlights the ongoing tension between maintaining open source principles and protecting commercial interests.

The Impact on the Open Source Ecosystem

These licensing shifts have far-reaching implications for the open source ecosystem:

  1. Community Trust: Changes in licensing can erode trust between companies and their open source communities.
  2. Innovation: More restrictive licenses might slow down innovation by limiting the ability of developers to freely use and modify software.
  3. Forking: As seen with Terraform and RHEL, controversial licensing changes can lead to community-driven forks.
  4. Business Models: Companies are forced to rethink their business models to balance open source ideals with financial sustainability.

Looking Ahead

As the open source landscape continues to evolve, we can expect ongoing debates about the most appropriate licensing models. Companies will need to carefully balance their need for sustainable revenue streams with the benefits of community-driven development and innovation.

The challenge moving forward will be to find licensing models that protect commercial interests without alienating the developer communities that have been instrumental in the success of open source software. As this story unfolds, one thing is clear: the definition of “open source” and what it means for both businesses and developers is undergoing a significant transformation.

Follow me on Twitter