Beyond the black & white: Why Open Source Single Vendor projects matter!
Projects that disrupt markets create different community dynamics than non-differentiating software: that’s where the flexibility of Open Source shines. Bruce Perens described the role of Open Source as a commodity in the 2005 article The emerging economic paradigm of Open Source. When an Open Sourced project is a game-changer or a disruptor the situation changes.
Open Source development is widely regarded as a collaborative model where software is created and distributed under OSI-approved licenses, allowing anyone to access, modify, and share the code freely,
This approach is often adopted to share the costs of development, maintenance, and enhancement, particularly for software that is not a core differentiator for a company. Linux and thousands of other projects are excellent examples.
Foundations or similar organizations enable members to save financially and obtain what they need more quickly, while also handling intellectual property (IP) and coordination.
Unlike classic Club theory, foundations don’t compete for members, as each club specializes in specific technological areas and benefits from positive externalities. They do not suffer from member spillover to other organizations and avoid the free-riding problem, as members who do not participate forfeit any influence over the project (e.g., Nvidia recent change in Linux kernel coding participation).
That said, co-developing non-differentiating software is not the only reason why individuals and organizations release their code as Open Source software.
The case of Open Source as business differentiator
Sometimes, software is released as Open Source specifically because it serves as a business differentiator, driving innovation—whether disruptive or breakthrough. Disruptive innovation refers to changes that alter market structures, while breakthrough innovation involves radical shifts in technology or product offerings. Examples of the first type include Open Source projects like SugarCRM, Pentaho, Alfresco, while the second group includes ElasticSearch, MongoDB, Neo4j, and Redis.
The fact that competitors might use this software to compete is often seen as an opportunity by those pursuing a similar strategy—until it isn’t. As we know, this often leads to companies changing the licensing, which can result in forks.
Here, we see two contrasting models: on one side, a diverse community, often under the umbrella of a foundation or similar organization, oversees participation architecture and manages IP, backing non-differentiating software. On the other side, a single vendor or individual controls the entire production process and IP, allowing third parties to benefit from the commons they created while maintaining strict control to capture as much value as possible.
The current narrative suggests that only OSS from Open Source development is worth considering, marginalizing OSS created by single vendors or individuals as unreliable or insignificant.
This dichotomy is flawed. Yesterday’s disruptive innovation — think of Linux, for example — is today’s non-differentiating software, now managed by the Linux Foundation. The same reasoning applies to breakthrough innovation, as in the Valkey case.
We must also recognize that diverse communities typically do not design and develop brand-new differentiating technologies, as it doesn’t make economic sense.
Similarly, creating differentiating technologies and releasing them under an Open Source license requires strong motivation, as the company is turning its crown jewels into a public good with a high risk of not recouping the investment.
This innovation comes at a cost. Producers might change license terms and deviate from their original Open Source trajectory, risking loss of trust, relevance, and upstream status.
On the other hand, consumers who opt for free riding could jeopardize the producer, potentially leading to forking (e.g., OpenSearch) or efforts to co-build a new community (e.g., Valkey).
Open Source is sparked by entrepreneurship
Having helped large organizations with Open Source procurement long before OSPOs existed, I can affirm that while a diverse, inclusive, and well-organized community is more sustainable and preferable when procuring OSS, Open Source innovation requires an entrepreneurial spirit and a genuine willingness to take risks. Typically, this spirit is found in single vendors or individuals.
The key implication of progressive technological ephemeralization is that distinguishing “good” OSS from “bad” OSS based solely on its origin risks sidelining breakthrough and disruptive innovation released under an Open Source license, ultimately jeopardizing the software lifecycle where differentiating software gradually becomes non-differentiating.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that without the initial, extended and effective efforts behind such Open Source projects, no innovation or breakthrough technology would be available. We should credit these efforts for creating public goods that have sometimes transformed the IT landscape for the better, opening up new possibilities previously unknown.
The article was originally published as a guest post on the Open Source Initiative blog.
Roberto Galoppini is discussing. 
Reply