Open Source Beyond the License: Sustainability, Sovereignty, and the Ethics of Contribution and why China is right

Introduction

The open source movement has revolutionized software development, democratizing access to technology and fostering innovation through collaboration. Yet, as the ecosystem matures, a critical question emerges: What does it truly mean for a project to be open source? The answer extends far beyond licensing. As Jos Poortvliet argues, the health of an open source project depends not only on its legal framework but also on its financial model, community governance, and the willingness of its users, especially corporations and governments, to contribute rather than merely consume.

This two-part analysis explores the dual challenges facing open source today: the gap between license and practice, and the ethical imbalance between those who take and those who give. In the first part, we examine why a project’s openness cannot be measured by its license alone. True open source requires transparency, active community participation, and sustainable funding, elements that determine whether a project empowers users or leaves them vulnerable to hidden dependencies. The second part confronts the growing trend of “leeching,” where companies and governments exploit open source software without contributing back, threatening the long-term viability of the projects they rely on. We contrast this with China’s strategic approach, where open source is leveraged as a tool for technological sovereignty and global influence, offering vital lessons for European policymakers and industry leaders [dri.es].

Together, these perspectives reveal a fundamental truth: open source is not just a technical model but a social contract. Its future depends on whether we treat it as a shared resource to be nurtured or a commodity to be extracted. For Europe, the choice is clear, embrace contribution as a core principle, or risk ceding ground to those who do.

Beyond the License: Why Jos Poortvliet is Right About True Open Source

Jos Poortvliet’s recent article, Is It Really Open Source? How to Tell if a Project Walks the Walk, cuts to the heart of a critical conversation in the open source world. As he rightly points out, a project’s license is only the first step in determining its openness. The real test lies in how the project is developed, funded, and governed, factors that directly impact its sustainability and the freedom it offers to users and contributors.

Poortvliet’s comparison of three hypothetical projects vividly illustrates this point. While all may carry an open source license, the differences in community engagement, transparency, and business models create vastly different experiences for users. A license alone does not guarantee true openness or resilience. Projects that foster active community participation, provide clear documentation, and maintain open development processes are far more likely to empower users and withstand challenges like forks or shifts in corporate direction.

At its core, open source is about more than just code availability; it’s about shared ownership and collective responsibility. Projects that prioritize community involvement and sustainable funding models, whether through corporate sponsorship, public investment, or grassroots contributions, are the ones that truly embody the spirit of open source. These projects not only respect the four freedoms but also ensure that users have the tools and support to take control of their software if needed.

Poortvliet’s reference to resources like Is It Really FOSS is a valuable reminder that transparency matters. Users and developers should look beyond the license to assess a project’s commitment to openness, its governance structure, and its financial health. After all, a thriving open source ecosystem depends on projects that walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

We applaud Jos for highlighting these nuances and encourage everyone in the open source community to support projects that champion both technical and financial openness. Only then can we build a future where open source lives up to its full potential, one that is truly free, collaborative, and sustainable.

Beyond the Community: Why Only Leeching and Not Contributing?

Open source is not a one-way street. Yet, too many companies and governments treat it as such, happily consuming the benefits of open source software while contributing little or nothing in return. This “leeching” behavior undermines the sustainability of the projects they depend on and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding: open source is not just a free alternative to proprietary software; it is a collaborative ecosystem that thrives on shared effort and investment.

The Problem: Taking Without Giving

• Governments as Free Riders: The European Commission, France, and Australia collectively run thousands of websites on Drupal, yet their contributions to the project’s development are minimal. Contracts are often awarded to the lowest bidder, not to those who actively maintain the open source infrastructure. As a result, a small group of maintainers and companies bear the burden for software that millions rely on [dri.es].
• Corporate Exploitation: While some companies, like Microsoft and Red Hat, are major contributors, many others simply take open source code, build proprietary services on top, and give nothing back. This creates a “race to the bottom,” weakening the very projects that enable their businesses [dri.es].
• False Sense of Security: Unlike proprietary vendors, open source projects do not lock users in, if a project is truly open, users can always fork it. But forking is a last resort, and without active community support, even the most open projects can become unsustainable.

China’s Strategic Approach: Lessons in Scale and Commitment

China offers a stark contrast. The country has rapidly become the world’s second-largest contributor to open source, with a vibrant developer community and strong government backing. Projects like OpenHarmony (Huawei’s open-source OS) and OpenEuler (a Linux distribution) are not just technical endeavors but strategic assets, supported by national policy and massive investment [jamestown.org]. The Chinese government and tech giants like Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei understand that open source is a path to technological independence and global influence. They invest in building large, active communities around their projects, ensuring long-term viability and reducing reliance on foreign technology [jamestown.org].

Key lessons from China’s approach:

• Government as a Catalyst: China’s 14th Five-Year Plan explicitly promotes open source as a driver of digital sovereignty. Public funding and policy incentives have accelerated the growth of domestic projects, making them globally competitive [jamestown.org].
• Community as a Priority: Chinese tech companies don’t just open source failed projects, they foster ecosystems. For example, JD.com runs one of the world’s largest Kubernetes clusters and actively contributes to upstream projects [interconnected.blog].
• Strategic Autonomy: By supporting open source, China reduces its dependence on Western tech and builds resilience against sanctions and restrictions [osw.waw.pl].

What European Governments Can Learn

1. Shift from Consumption to Contribution: European governments must move beyond using open source as a cost-saving measure. Procurement policies should require vendors to contribute back, whether through code, documentation, or funding [dri.es].
2. Invest in Open Source as Public Infrastructure: Following Germany’s lead, more countries should establish Open Source Program Offices (OSPOs) and fund critical projects directly. The EU’s Cyber Resilience Act is a step in the right direction, but more action is needed [dri.es].
3. Prioritize Digital Sovereignty: Europe’s recent shift away from proprietary vendors like Microsoft is promising, but success depends on more than just switching software. User training, change management, and community engagement are essential to avoid the pitfalls seen in Munich’s failed LiMux project [windowsforum.com].
4. Collaborate, Don’t Compete: European developers are creating strong alternatives in AI, cloud, and cybersecurity, but these efforts need sustained support to match the scale of Chinese and American [projectsmedium.com]. Examples like "Mijn Bureau" by the Dutch government show how it shouldn't be done. A small project basically forking open source projects and glueing them into a new whole, supported by a small team, with minimal experience in open source. Nor in open source licencing, nor in open source community work. A strange descision, while all information is just there. 

The Bottom Line

Open source is not a charity. It is a shared resource that requires shared responsibility. Companies and governments that only take, without contributing, risk killing the golden goose. Europe has the talent and the values to lead in open source, but it must act now to build a sustainable, community-driven future. A future where companies and governments don't compete but collaborate. 

Conclusion: A Call for Responsible Open Source Stewardship

Open source software is more than a development methodology, it is a foundation for digital autonomy, innovation, and public good. Yet, its sustainability is under threat from two sides: projects that claim openness without fostering true community engagement, and users, especially governments and corporations, that treat open source as a free resource rather than a shared responsibility.

Jos Poortvliet’s argument that openness requires more than a license is a wake-up call. A project’s health depends on transparency, governance, and financial sustainability. Without these, even the most permissive license cannot prevent vendor lock-in or ensure long-term resilience. Meanwhile, the rise of “leeching”—where organizations benefit from open source without contributing back, undermines the very ecosystem they depend on. China’s strategic investments in open source, backed by government policy and corporate commitment, demonstrate how nations can turn collaboration into a competitive advantage. Europe, with its strong tradition of public digital infrastructure and digital sovereignty initiatives, has an opportunity to lead, but only if it shifts from passive consumption to active stewardship.

The path forward is clear: governments must embed open source contributions into procurement policies, companies must recognize their role as maintainers rather than just consumers, and communities must demand accountability. Open source is not a zero-sum game; it thrives when all stakeholders, developers, businesses, and public institutions, act as custodians rather than free riders. The alternative is a future where open source becomes a hollow promise, its potential squandered by short-term thinking and exploitation.

The choice is ours. Will we build an open source ecosystem that is truly open, sustainable, and equitable? Or will we allow it to be eroded by neglect and opportunism? The answer will shape not just the future of software, but the digital sovereignty of nations and the freedom of users worldwide.