When Free Isn't Sustainable: Rethinking Open-Source Licensing and Monetization
Open source has long thrived on a promise: make it free, make it open, and the ecosystem will flourish. That vision still holds, but cracks are showing—and they're widening.
This past week, two developments reignited the conversation around sustainability in open source. First, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) published a clarifying blog post defending its role and reaffirming its neutrality in license debates. Second, a new academic paper explored how some developers are moving away from classic open-source licensing to seek sustainable funding—sometimes at the cost of being excluded from the open-source label altogether.
The tension is real. Developers want to share their work. But they also want to pay rent.
The Value Paradox
For years, tech giants have built billion-dollar products on the backs of open-source libraries, tools, and frameworks. Maintainers, on the other hand, often operate with zero financial support.
This value paradox—where open-source software drives immense commercial success while maintainers burn out—is at the heart of today's licensing debates. To respond, some developers are shifting to licenses like the Server Side Public License (SSPL) or creating custom “source available” licenses that allow code to be read and modified but not used in commercial offerings without payment.
It's a move born of necessity, not greed. These changes reflect a simple truth: free as in freedom doesn’t always pay the bills.
OSI’s Dilemma
The OSI, which maintains the official Open Source Definition, stepped in to clarify its stance: it does not pick sides in business models or favor corporate interests. Instead, its job is to evaluate whether a license meets the definition's core principles—free redistribution, access to source code, and non-discrimination.
But here’s the rub: many licenses that attempt to monetize usage don’t meet these criteria and therefore aren’t OSI-approved. That creates a perception problem. If your license isn’t "open source" under OSI rules, does that make your project less trustworthy? Less community-friendly? Less ethical?
The OSI insists it’s not about gatekeeping—it’s about consistency. But in a world where monetization is becoming a survival strategy, that line feels increasingly rigid.
Toward a Middle Ground
The academic paper published this week explores real-world cases where license changes triggered backlash—and also where they spurred innovation. It suggests that a strict binary between “open” and “closed” may no longer serve the needs of modern developers.
Instead, we may need new language and new categories: source-available, open-core, dual-license, ethical source. These are imperfect, but they reflect an evolving reality: openness now includes a spectrum of models, not just a single definition.
In this light, the OSI’s role could shift from arbiter to advisor—helping navigate nuance rather than drawing a hard line in the sand.
What This Means for the Ecosystem
For users, it’s time to ask hard questions: Who’s maintaining the software you rely on? Are they being compensated? What happens if they walk away?
For companies, the message is clearer than ever: supporting open source isn’t charity—it’s risk management. Whether it’s via sponsorship, donations, or paid support, funding your dependencies is an investment in your own infrastructure.
And for developers and maintainers, this moment demands courage. Whether you choose an OSI-approved license or carve your own path, your work deserves respect and sustainability.
Open source is not broken. But it is evolving. And that evolution must include space for financial viability—not just idealism.
Note: The preceding text is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal nor business advice. The views expressed in the text are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization or entity.
#OpenSourceSoftware #Licensing #Technology #Business