The Future of the Open Source Definition
Open accessAbstract
Many forces pull to change the definitions of what free and open source software are. This article looks at these forces and speculates what the future will hold in store for the definition of open source software.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In many relicensing events, vendors continue to make the source code available and position the projects as 'open' after the relicensing event.
“In many of these relicensing events, vendors continue to make the source code available and position the projects as 'open' after the relicensing event.”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Riehle 2023
The DISCRIMINATORY LICENSES section describes vendors relicensing projects from open source to source-available licenses, which supports the claim that source code remains available after relicensing. It says those licenses present software as “like open source,” but does not establish that vendors continue to position the relicensed projects as “open.” (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere is always the potential for negative impacts for projects that are relicensed because of a loss of contributors and the loss of users.
“There always lies the potential for negative impacts for projects that are relicensed because of a loss of contributors and the loss of users, and vendors can consider those potential losses against any potential benefits they aim to achieve from a relicensing event (Riehle 2023).”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Riehle 2023
In DISCRIMINATORY LICENSES (page unavailable), Riehle says vendors relicense when they need the goodwill of open source less and prioritize profitability. FROM THE EDITOR (page unavailable) says vendor control of contributions discourages developers. Neither passage says relicensing causes projects to lose contributors or users, or that vendors weigh those specific losses against its benefits. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOne response to this pressure has been the relicensing of vendor-controlled open source projects to more restrictive licences in the hopes of limiting competition and generating additional revenue for the vendor.
“One response to this pressure has been the relicensing of open source projects that are controlled by vendors to more restrictive licences in the hopes of limiting competition and generating additional revenue for the vendor that is driving that open source project (Riehle 2023;Stephens 2024).”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Riehle 2023
Vendors licence away from open source to source available typically only if they feel they need the goodwill of open source less urgently than before.
“vendors licence away from open source to source available typically only if they feel they need the goodwill of open source less urgently than before.”
From Freeriding and Rebellion: An Investigation of Open Source Vendor Relicensing and Member Hard Forking Events (2026) · cites this paper as Riehle 2023
The rise of large language models and text-to-image generators means that a different approach to open source classification is needed.
“However, the rise of large language models and text-to-image generators means that a different approach is needed [47].”
From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
The OPEN PROJECT GOVERNANCE and OPEN SOURCE, WHAT NEXT? sections discuss ways to classify software projects and certify vendor behavior, but neither connects those approaches to large language models or text-to-image generators. Searches for those technologies and for generative AI found no passage addressing the claimed reason a different approach is needed. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A Brief History of Free, Open Source Software and Its Communities
Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M. (2021) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2020.3041887 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Single-Vendor Open Source Firms
Riehle, D. (2020) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2020.2969672 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act
Liesenfeld, A., & Dingemanse, M. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659005 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“However, the rise of large language models and text-to-image generators means that a different approach is needed [47].”
BackgroundFoster, D., & Germonprez, M. (2026) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.70060
When Research Software Goes to Class: Lessons From Embedding Research Software Into Teaching
Dorner, M., Bauer, A., & Angermeir, F. (2026) · Journal of Open Research Software · doi:10.5334/jors.548
Lumbard, K., Afzali, F. M., & Link, G. J. P. (2026) · ACM Southeast Regional Conference (ACMSE) · doi:10.1145/3746467.3801504
- Authors
- Riehle, D.
- Affiliations
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Riehle, Dirk
- ORCID
- Riehle, Dirk
- Venue
- Computer
- Published
- 2023-12
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 95-99
- ISSN
- 0018-9162 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-0814
- OpenAlex
- W4388720155
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Intellectual Property Rights and Media
- Keywords
- free software, open source software, software licensing, open source movement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
